ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR v. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, EULOGIO M. MARIANO, JOSE D. JIMENEZ, JR.,TORIBIO E. ILAO, JR. and ERNESTO R.

SALENGA 510 SCRA 74 December 6, 2006 (How subject matter ornature of the action determined) Case Digest FACTS:Paciencia Regala owns a seven (7)-hectare fishpond located at Sasmuan, Pampanga. Her Attorney-in-Fact Faustino R.Mercado leased the fishpond to Eduardo Lapid for a three (3)year period. Lessee Eduardo Lapid in turn sub-leased thefishpond to Rafael Lopez during the last seven (7) months of the original lease. Ernesto Salenga was hired by EduardoLapid as fishpond watchman ( bante-encargado ). In the sub-lease, Rafael Lopez rehired respondent Salenga. ErnestoSalenga Salenga, sent the demand letter to Rafael Lopez and Lourdes Lapid for unpaid salaries and non-payment of the 10% share in t he harvest. Salenga was promted to file a Com plaint bef or e t he Pr ovincial Agrarian ReformAdjudication Board (PARAB), Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga docket ed as DARAB Case No. 552- P93 entitled Ernesto R. Salenga v. Rafael L. Lopez and Lourdes L. Lapid for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession, Collection of Sumof Money and Supervision of Harvest.Pending resolution of the agrarian case, the inst ant case was inst it ut ed by pet it ioner Ant onio Balt azar , an allegednephew of Faustino Mer cado, t hrough a Com plaint - Affidavit against private respondents before the Off ice of theOmbudsman which was docketed as OMB-1-94-3425 entitled Antonio B. Baltazar v. Eulogio Mariano, Jose Jimenez, Jr.,Toribio Ilao, Jr. and Ernesto Salenga for violation of RA 3019. Petitioner maintains that respondent Ilao, Jr. had no jurisdiction to hear and act on DARAB Case No. 552-P93 filed by respondent Salenga as there was no tenancy relationbetween respondent Salenga and Rafael L. Lopez, and thus, the complaint was dismissible on its face.ISSUE:Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to pursue the instant petition?Whet her or not the Om budsman likewise err ed in rever sing his own r esolut ion where it was r esolved that accused as Provincial Agrarian Adjudicator has no jurisdiction over a complaint where there exist no tenancyrelationship?HELD: The "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the partyentitled to t he avails of t he suit . The Com plaint - Affidavit filed bef or e t he Office of the Om budsman, there is noquestion on his authority and legal standing. The Ombudsman can act on anonymous complaints and motu proprio inquire into alleged improper official acts or omissions from whatever source, e.g., a newspaper.Faustino Mercado, is an agent himself and as such cannot further delegate his agency to another. An agent cannotdelegate to another the same agency. Re-delegation of the agency would be detrimental to the principal as the secondagent has no privity of contract with the former. In the instant case, petitioner has no privity of contract with PacienciaRegala, owner of the fishpond and principal of Faustino Mercado. The facts clearly show that it was not the Ombudsman through the OSP who allowed respondent Ilao, Jr. to submit hisCounter- Aff idavit . It was the Sandiganbayan who grant ed the prayed for re- invest igat ion and or dered the O SP to conduct the reinvestigation . The OSP simply followed the graft courts directive to conduct the re-investigation afterthe Counter-Affidavit of respondent Ilao, Jr. was filed. Indeed, petitioner did not contest nor question the August 29,1997 Order of the graft court. Moreover, petitioner did not file any reply-affidavit in the reinvestigation despite notice. The nat ur e of the case is determi ned by the settled rul e that j uri sdicti on over t he subject m att er i sdet erm ined by the allegati ons of the complai nt. The nature of an acti on i s determi ned by t he m ateri alaverm ents in the com pl aint and t he char acter of t he r eli ef sought not by the def enses asser ted i n the answer or motion to dismiss.Respondent Salengas complaint and its attachment clearly spells out the jurisdictional allegations thathe is an agri cultural t enant in possession of t he fi shpond and is about to be ej ected fr om it, clearl y,r espondent Ilao, Jr. coul d not be fault ed in assum ing jurisdi cti on as said all egati ons charact eri ze an agricultural dispute. Besides, w hat ever def ense assert ed in an answer or moti on t o di sm iss i s not to beconsidered in resolving the issue on jurisdiction as it cannot be made dependent upon the allegations of the defendant. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the Order and the October 30, 1998 Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 23661 (OMB-1-94-3425) are hereby AFFIRMED ADRIANO G. BAHIAN JR. Page 1

IN TOTO , withcosts against petitioner employee.

ADRIANO G. BAHIAN JR. Page 2