BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS: The Office of the Ombudsman received information from an informer-for-reward that tax refunds have been anomalously granted to Distillera Limtuaco & Co., Inc. and La Tondea Distilleries, Inc. Upon receipt of the information, Soquilon recommended to then Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez that the case be docketed and subsequently assigned to him for investigation. On the basis of the information, the OMB issued a subpoena duces tecum addressed to Atty. Mansequiao of the Legal Department of the BIR ordering him to appear before him and to bring the complete original case dockets of the refunds granted to the said companies. BIR resisted the summons on the grounds that the grant of the tax refund had already been mooted by the Sandiganbayan in People vs Larin, that the legal issue was no longer in question since the BIR had ruled that the ad valorem taxes were erroneously paid and could therefore be the proper subject of a claim for tax credit. BIR argued that for subpoena duces tecum to be properly issued in accordance with law, there must first be a pending action because the power to issue a subpoena duces tecum is not an independent proceeding. The BIR noted that the Ombudsman issued the assailed subpoena duces tecum based only on the information obtained from an informer-forreward. The Ombudsman denied the motion of the BIR and reiterated its instructions to the BIR to produce the documents sought. Instead of complying, the BIR filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order with the SC. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Ombudsman could validly exercise its power to investigate only when there exists an appropriate case and subject to the limitations provided by law 2. Whether or not the granting tax refunds falls within BIRs exclusive expertise and jurisdiction and that its findings could no longer be disturbed by the Ombudsman 3. Whether or not the investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman violated due process in issuing subpoena without first giving BIR the summary of complaint and requiring it to submit a written reply HELD: 1. No. The 1987 Constitution enjoins that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate case, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. There is no requirement of a pending action before the Ombudsman could wield its investigative power. Even when the complaint is verbal or written, unsigned or unverified, the Ombudsman could, on its own, initiate the investigation.

2. No. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. The Ombudsman Act provides that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employee xxx during his tenure of office. Concededly, the determination of whether to grant a tax refund falls within the exclusive expertise of the BIR. When there is a suspicion of even just a tinge of impropriety in the grant of the same, the Ombudsman could rightfully ascertain whether the determination was done in accordance with law and identify the persons who may be held responsible thereto. 3. Yes. It is clear from the initial comments of the graft investigator that based on the information, he undoubtedly found reasonable grounds to investigate further. In fact, he recommended that the case be docketed immediately and assigned to him for a full-blown fact-finding investigation. if there is a reasonable ground to investigate further, the investigator of the Office of the Ombudsman shall first furnish the respondent public officer or employee with a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written answer within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof. In the instant case, the BIR was never furnished by the respondent with a summary of the complaint and were not given the opportunity to submit their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence. Instead, they were summarily ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and to produce the case dockets of the tax refunds granted to Limtuaco and La Tondea. They are aggrieved in that, from the point of view of the respondent, they were already deemed probably guilty of granting anomalous tax refunds. Petition is granted. Ombudsman is prohibited from proceeding with the case and its orders are annulled and set aside.