G.R. No. 183623 - LETICIA B. AGBAYANI, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND LOIDA MARCELINA J. GENABE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the assailed resolution is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accordingly, the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City is directed to move for the withdrawal of the information for grave oral defamation filed against respondent Loida Marcelina J. Genabe, and report the action taken thereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED . [8] The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution [9] dated June 25, 2007. Consequently, Agbayani filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Resolution dated February 12, 2007 of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City in I.S. Case No. 07-0013. She averred that the respondents petition for review filed with the DOJ did not comply with Sections 5 and 6 of DOJ Circular No. 70, or the 2000 National Prosecution Service (NPS) Rules on Appeal, and maintained that her evidence supported a finding of probable cause for grave oral defamation against respondent Genabe. On March 27, 2008, the CA dismissed the petition after finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ. Citing Punzalan v. Dela Peña , [10] the CA stated that for grave abuse of discretion to exist, the complained act must constitute a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as it is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. It is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave. On motion for reconsideration by the petitioner, the CA denied the same in its Resolution [11] dated July 3, 2008. Hence, the instant petition. Assignment of Errors Maintaining her stance, Agbayani raised the following, to wit: RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT DOJ DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN THE LATTER REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF LAS PIÑAS CITY. RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT DOJ'S FINDING THAT WHAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT COMMITTED WAS ONLY SLIGHT ORAL DEFAMATION. RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT DOJ'S DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991. RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 70 (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal) ARE NOT MANDATORY. [12] Ruling and Discussions The petition is bereft of merit. We shall first tackle Agbayani's arguments on the first two issues raised in the instant petition. 1. Petitioner Agbayani alleged that Undersecretary Pineda unfairly heeded only to the arguments interposed by respondent Genabe in her comment; and the CA, in turn, took his findings and reasoning as gospel truth. Agbayanis