MENDOZA-ARCE v.

OMBUDSMAN All of elements must proven, however, in this case the issuance of the LOA there is no basis
G.R. No. 149148/ APRIL 5, 2002/MENDOZA, J. /IQUINTANA for finding of Mendoza to have acted with “partiality” or bias or “bad faith”, nor with “gross
NATURE Petition for Certiorari negligence”. The work of a Clerk of Court, although an officer of the Court, a public
PETITIONERS Susan Mendoza-Arce officer, and an officer of the law, is not that of a judicial officer but essentially a ministerial
RESPONDENTS Office of the Ombudsman, et. al. one.

DOCTRINE. The elements of the offense under Sec. 3(e) are: 1) That the accused are public
officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; 2) That said public officers
committed the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to
their public positions; 3) That they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government
or a private party; 4) That such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference to such parties; and 5) That the public officers have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
FACTS.
 There was a Special Proceeding to for the will of Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz and Santiago
Villaruz was one of the oppositors. The said case was assigned to the sala of Judge Patricio
 Santiao was initially the administrator of the estate of Remedios but he was removed for
patent neglect. His eldest brother Nicolas Villaruz, Jr. replaced him and he filed a motion
for the approval of his bond as administrator.
 The motion was opposed by Jose Maria, another brother, and attached to their opposition
was a certification executed by Remedios, which authorized Santiago to take possession of
her nipa, lands and gave Santiago the option for leasing such lands.
 Judge Patricio issued an order recognizing the validity of the certification and the
administration of the new administration was subject to them but this was not reflected in
the dispostive portion of the order.
 The case was, in the meantime, reassigned to Judge Pestaño who approved Nicolas’ bond.
After this receiving Judge Pestaño’s order, Susan Mendoza-Arce, prepared a Letter of
Administration (LOA) in favor of Nicolas and this was based on the form prescribed in the
Manual for Clerk of Courts. Acting on the LOA, Nicolas took possession of the entire estate
of Remedios including the nipa lands, which were leased to Santiago.
 Santiago filed a letter-complaint to the Ombudsman claiming that Mendoza violated Article
171 of the RPC and Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 for showing manifest partiality, evident bad faith,
or gross inexclusable negligence.
 The Ombudsman found sufficient basis for the filing of the informations against Mendoza.
 Mendoza claims she was not guilty of the crimes and she merely issued the LOA based on
the Manual.
The LOA issued by Mendoza was performed as a ministerial duty. She merely copied
substantially the form for letters of administration prescribed in the Manual for Clerks of
Courts. The LOA is not accurate for lack of reference to the lease agreement in favor of
Santiago but this does not equate to gross negligence or from some corrupt motive. She
used the phrases in the Manual prescribed by the Court, instead of employing her own
words.
DECISION.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the resolution dated April 20, 2001, of the
Graft Investigation Officer, as approved by the Office of the Ombudsman, and his order, dated
June 29, 2001, are hereby SET ASIDE and the complaint of respondent Santiago B. Villaruz
against petitioner Susan Mendoza-Arce for violation of R.A. No.
NOTES.
“Partiality” or bias, which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for
rather than as they are.
“Bad faith” which connotes not only bad judgment or negligence but also a dishonest purpose
or conscious wrongdoing, a breach of duty amounting to fraud
“Gross negligence” which is negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting
or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences as far as other persons are
concerned

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON Mendoza violated Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. – NO.

There is no probable cause for the filing of information for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA
3019. The elements of the offense under Sec. 3(e) are: 1) That the accused are public
officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; 2) That said public officers
committed the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to
their public positions; 3) That they caused undue injury to any party, whether the
Government or a private party; 4) That such injury is caused by giving unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and 5) That the public officers have acted
with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.