Orcullo v. Gervacio, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nenita R. Orcullo, a City Councilor of Davao City and Chair of the Committee on Women Welfare and Development, caused the suspension of a project due to financial constraints. Respondent Virginia Yap Morales, who was appointed team leader for the project, alleged that she was unceremoniously separated from the project without formal notice and was denied payment for services rendered from August to October 1996. Procedural History: Respondent Morales requested assistance from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao to collect back wages. The Deputy Ombudsman ordered petitioner Orcullo to pay respondent Morales back wages amounting to P70,800.00. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the absence of an employer-employee relationship and the Ombudsman's lack of authority. The motion was denied. Subsequently, a graft investigator recommended filing a case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioner, which the Deputy Ombudsman approved. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the orders of the Deputy Ombudsman, arguing that the Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering her to personally pay back wages and in recommending the filing of an anti-graft case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner to personally pay back wages to respondent Morales. Whether the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in approving the recommendation to file a case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioner.
Ruling
The Court GRANTS the petition for certiorari and ANNULS the orders of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao dated February 5, 1998, and March 23, 1998, as well as the memorandum dated April 15, 1998. The Court enjoins the Deputy Ombudsman from further acting on the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Deputy Ombudsman's authority to order payment of back wages: The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman's power under R.A. No. 6770, Section 15(5), is limited to requesting assistance and information from government agencies, not to ordering a public official to personally pay a money claim of an aggrieved party. Such a claim, whether against the individual or the city government, falls outside the Ombudsman's direct adjudicatory power. The Court emphasized that a money claim against a public official personally is within the jurisdiction of a court of proper jurisdiction, and a claim against the city government is within the jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod or other proper government agency, but not the Ombudsman's office. Therefore, the order to pay back wages was an improper exercise of authority. On the issue of filing a graft case against petitioner: The Court found that the Deputy Ombudsman abused the functions of his office by approving the recommendation to file an anti-graft case against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Petitioner, as an elected local legislator, was merely exercising her duties in relation to a project aiding legislation. She was not the one who hired respondent Morales, and her refusal to pay was not shown to be in bad faith, much less evident bad faith. Consequently, she could not be held liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Court cited Venus vs. Desierto to support the view that further prosecution in such a scenario would be pure harassment.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman does not have the authority to order a public official to personally pay a money claim of an aggrieved party. Such an order constitutes acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.