Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondents, officers of the Association of Municipal Health Office Personnel of Zamboanga del Sur, filed a complaint against petitioners, the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur. The complaint alleged that petitioners violated R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, by failing to provide salary increases and benefits mandated by R.A. 7305 (Magna Carta of Public Health Workers) and various Local Budget Circulars to the health personnel of the municipality. 2. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao issued a Resolution on June 29, 1998, finding probable cause to charge the petitioners with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, and recommended the filing of an Information with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, arguing that the non-implementation of salary increases was due to lack of funds and circumstances beyond their control. The Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal, but Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto disapproved this recommendation on June 18, 1999. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which they considered denied by the disapproval of the dismissal recommendation. This led to the filing of the present petition. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Ombudsman's Resolution dated June 29, 1998, and the Memorandum dated June 11, 1999. They argue that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the resolution charging them and in disapproving the recommendation to dismiss the criminal case. Petitioners also contend that they were not yet elected officials during the period when the budget circular mandating the increases took effect, thus absolving them of liability. The Office of the Ombudsman, however, raised the issue of non-compliance with the verification and certification requirements of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the resolution charging the petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the memorandum recommending the dismissal of the criminal case.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in approving the resolution charging the petitioners: The Court held that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. It is beyond the ambit of the Supreme Court to review the Ombudsman's discretion in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint. This initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman, who acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of public service. The Court reiterated that it ordinarily does not determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. This rule is based on respect for the Ombudsman's powers and on practicality, to avoid overburdening the courts with challenges to investigatory proceedings. The Court also noted that the petition was defective for failing to comply with Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as only one petitioner signed the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping without showing authorization from the co-petitioners. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance is not sufficient in matters requiring strict observance of rules, and the attestation requires personal knowledge. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the memorandum recommending dismissal: The Court reiterated its stance that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion. Furthermore, regarding the joint affidavits of waiver executed by private complainants, the Court cited Alba vs. Nitorreda, ruling that such affidavits are not binding on the Office of the Ombudsman and cannot prevail over its statutory power to investigate and prosecute on its own any act or omission of a public officer that appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Ombudsman's power to investigate and prosecute is independent and cannot be curtailed by private agreements.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers, and it is beyond the Court's ambit to review the Ombudsman's discretion in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint. A joint affidavit of desistance is not binding on the Office of the Ombudsman and cannot prevail over its power to investigate and prosecute.