Vergara v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the purchase of several lots by the City Government of Calamba for a new city hall site. The City Council, including petitioner Severino B. Vergara, authorized Mayor Severino J. Lajara to negotiate and purchase these lots from Pamana, Inc. and Prudential Bank. The transaction involved 15 lots totaling 55,190 square meters for a price of P129,017,600, payable in installments. Petitioner raised concerns about the ownership of some lots, the alleged forgery of a deed of assignment, the absence of a relocation survey, the inclusion of road lots and creek lots, and potential overpricing. Procedural History: Petitioner Vergara and Edgardo H. Catindig filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon against Mayor Lajara, City Treasurer Virginia G. Baroro, Pamana, Inc., and Prudential Bank for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). On March 17, 2004, the Ombudsman dismissed the case, finding no probable cause. The Ombudsman reasoned that the purchase price was reasonable, lower than the zonal valuation, and the payment terms were not onerous. Petitioner sought reconsideration, reiterating his concerns. On August 22, 2005, the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that Mayor Lajara had prior authorization and that the lack of ratification did not invalidate the purchase. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: This petition for certiorari and mandamus assails the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order dismissing the graft charges. Petitioner argues that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to consider the issue of Calamba City paying for road lots and easement/creek lots at the same price as other properties, and by not requiring ratification of the contracts by the City Council. The petition seeks to compel the Ombudsman to file the necessary information against the respondents. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the Ombudsman's findings, holding that the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause is generally not subject to interference unless there is grave abuse of discretion, and that prior authorization, not ratification, was required by law for the Mayor to enter into the contracts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed for lack of probable cause the case against respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, specifically regarding the acquisition of road lots. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it failed to consider the issue that Calamba City had acquired road lots which should not have been paid at the same price as the other lots. Whether the lack of ratification by the City Council of all documents pertaining to the purchase of the lots invalidated the transaction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman dated March 17, 2004, and August 22, 2005, respectively.
Ratio Decidendi
On the determination of probable cause by the Ombudsman and the grave abuse of discretion in the acquisition of road lots: The Supreme Court reiterated that the Office of the Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, and it has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed. This Court adopts a policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of its powers unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman found no probable cause, concluding that the purchase price was reasonable and lower than the zonal valuation, and that there was no evidence of actual injury or damage to the city government. The Court found that the Ombudsman's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and that the petitioner raised questions of fact, which are not proper in a petition for certiorari. The Court emphasized that probable cause requires more than bare suspicion and cannot be left to conjecture, but it does not require clear and convincing evidence of guilt. On the issue that Calamba City had acquired road lots which should not have been paid at the same price as the other lots: The Supreme Court addressed the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Ombudsman concluded the purchase price was reasonable and lower than the zonal valuation, with no evidence of actual injury or damage to the city government. The Court reiterated its policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman's exercise of its powers unless there is grave abuse of discretion. On the ratification by the City Council of all documents pertaining to the purchase of the lots: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 22(c) of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) requires prior authorization from the sanggunian, not ratification, for the local chief executive to enter into contracts. Resolution No. 280, Series of 2001, clearly authorized Mayor Lajara to purchase the lots and execute the necessary documents. Therefore, the lack of ratification did not invalidate the transaction or indicate evident bad faith. The Court noted that the City Council, through petitioner's motion, even moved for the enactment of Resolution No. 280, granting the Mayor the authority to proceed with the purchase. The Ombudsman correctly ruled that the absence of ratification alone did not characterize the purchase as one giving unwarranted benefits or causing undue injury.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which requires more than mere error of judgment and must be so patent as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.