356 Phil. 626
MENDOZA, J.:
1) Certificate of Registration No. 0722440-1In 1992, she changed the engines of these vehicles. The engine (No. 10PBI-984339) of the first truck, covered by Certificate of Registration No. 0722440-1, was replaced with another engine bearing the number 10PBI-312059. The engine (No. E-120-205656) of the second Isuzu truck, covered by Certificate of Registration No. 0147710-3, was likewise changed with another one (No. E-120-260820). On November 24, 1992, after obtaining a clearance from the Philippine National Police, petitioner tried to register the two vehicles with their new engines in the Sta. Mesa branch of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) of which respondent Rodolfo V. Bucu was then officer-in-charge.
Make/Type : ISUZU CARGO DROPSIDE
Motor No. : 10PBI-984339
Serial/Chassis No. : SSM701-1933654
M.V. File No. : 4E-80355
Plate No. : T-PLH-266
2) Certificate of Registration No. 0147710-3
Make/Type : ISUZU CARGO TRUCK
Motor No. : E-120-205656
Serial/Chassis No. : TMK25E-1731615
M.V. File No. : 4F-38263
Plate No. : T-NWM-418
To the Registrar:The chattel mortgage agreement, dated October 2, 1989, a copy of which was also given to Bucu, shows that it was executed to secure a P750,000.00 loan obtained by petitioner from Angel Tan.[4]
I am requesting your good office to hold any transaction of the vehicles (sic) more particularly described as follows:
OWNER : A J & T Trading
ADDRESS : 619 Carvajal St.,
Binondo, Manila
MAKE : ISUZU
TYPE : CARGO DROPSIDE
MOTOR # : 10PBI-984339
CHASSIS # : SSM 701-1933654
FILE # : 4E-80355
PLATE # : T-PLH-226 (1990)
The said motor vehicles (sic) is pledged to us by the owner (ANNIE TAN) as quolateral (sic) to a mortgaged (sic).
Kindly hold all transactions for the aforementioned of the said motor vehicles (sic).
Hoping for your kind consideration for (sic) this matter. I remain (sic).
Sgd. ANGEL TAN
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.On the basis of these findings, the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s complaint:
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
The Office of the Ombudsman found:
In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent Bucu clarified that he did not actually refuse the registration of the change of engine transaction sought by complainant Annie Tan. He advised her to confer first with Mr. Angel Tan regarding the alleged chattel mortgage agreement which has for its subject the vehicle which engine is now sought to be changed. This is based on a letter (Annex 1 of the Counter-Affidavit) of Mr. Angel Tan dated February 19, 1991, requesting the Land Transportation Office (LTO), Manila East District to hold any transaction on the vehicle pledged to him by the owner, Annie Tan as collateral to a mortgage. Said vehicle is particularly described as follows:
OWNER : A J & T Trading
ADDRESS : 619 Carvajal St.,
Binondo, Manila
MAKE : ISUZU
TYPE : CARGO DROPSIDE
MOTOR # : 10 PBI-984339
CHASSIS # : SSM 701-1933654
FILE # : 4E-80355
PLATE # : T-PLH-226 (1990)
Mr. Bucu was likewise furnished a copy of the chattel mortgage agreement dated October 2, 1989 between Angel Tan as mortgagor and Annie Tan as mortgagee. The mortgage was constituted on a vehicle which has the following particular descriptions:
TYPE --------- ISUZU V-10
10 Wheeler Cargo
Truck (newly Reconditioned directly from Japan)
CHASSIS --------- SSM701-1933654
ENGINE No. --------- 10PBI-309691
Series of 193, 320 HP
to secure a loan taken by Annie Tan from Angel Tan in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P750,000.00)
It is settled that the two aforequoted documents, the letter-request and the chattel mortgage agreement, refers to the same vehicle and this is consistent with the vehicle which engine is now sought to be changed by complainant Annie Tan but there is divergence with regard to the engine number. The chattel mortgage agreement refer to engine no. 10PBI-309691 while the letter-request as well as the affidavit supporting the request of change of engine transaction refer to one and the same engine no. 10PBI-984339.
The divergence as to the engine number is explained by the scheme sought by the complainant to mislead and to conceal from the mortgagee the whereabouts of the vehicle subject of the mortgage. As evidenced by the narration of respondent Bucu, the original engine no. is 10PBI-309691 covered by the original COR No. 0530015. Then a request for engine was sought for the first time by complainant Annie Tan and the engine no. was changed to PBI-984339. This is now the engine no. mentioned in the letter-request of Angel Tan.
To further mislead the mortgagee, Mr. Angel Tan, complainant Annie Tan misrepresented that she lost the owner’s copy of the certificate of registration so that she will be issued another certificate of registration. Mr. Bucu confirmed that this is a misrepresentation on the part of Annie Tan. This is a part of her scheme to bring the mortgagee into a maze and unable him to trace the vehicle subject of the mortgage.(sic)
Not contended (sic) with that, Annie Tan continued her plan to mislead once more the mortgagee when she sought the registration of the latest change of engine transaction. This time, her attempt was not consummated due to the timely discovery of respondent Bucu.[10]
Considering the foregoing as the factual backdrop, respondent Bucu is justified in refusing the request for registration of the change of engine transaction. Moreover, a complaint for a sum of money was already filed by Angel Tan against Annie Tan with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117 where a writ of Preliminary Attachment has already been issued against the said vehicle of the complainant. It can be said that respondent Bucu did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence when he refused the registration of the change of engine transaction. He could not simply tolerate the obvious scheme of the complainant in adopting ways and means to defraud her creditors. With more reason that he could not just ignore the plea of a creditor who is trying his best to protect his rights accorded to him by law.[11]Given such, we hold as to §3(e) that there was neither "undue injury" caused nor "unwarranted benefits" conferred as a result of respondent Bucu’s decision to defer registration of the vehicle in question. For, as found by the Ombudsman, respondent Bucu did not really refuse to register the said vehicle but only advised petitioner to settle matters with Angel Tan first.[12] Indeed, Angel Tan had already obtained a writ of preliminary attachment on the vehicle, thereby proving that respondent Bucu had acted prudently in not granting with alacrity petitioner’s application.
. . . The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.As the Solicitor General notes, if respondent Bucu had immediately allowed the registration of the vehicle in question, it easily would have gone through at least four certificates of registration, counted from the first, showing three different engine numbers.[15] Respondent Bucu thus acted properly in advising petitioner to settle the matter with Angel Tan first. Indeed, as the Ombudsman subsequently found, a complaint for a sum of money had in fact been filed by Angel Tan against Annie Tan with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117 and a writ of preliminary attachment obtained against the vehicle.[16] To have readily allowed the registration of the vehicle in petitioner’s name would therefore have instead caused "undue injury" to Angel Tan or given material advantage to petitioner in violation of §3(e) of Rep. Act. No. 3019.