Kalalo v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roberto Kalalo, an employee of Pablo Borbon Memorial Institute of Technology (PBMIT), now Batangas State University, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against several officials of the institution. He alleged that these officials committed falsification of public documents and violations of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The alleged offenses stemmed from inconsistencies and suspected insertions in the minutes of the 129th General Meeting of the Board of Trustees held on January 21, 1997, specifically concerning three resolutions related to fee adjustments, deposit of college income, and construction contracts. Procedural History: The petitioner's complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. After the respondents submitted their Joint Counter-Affidavit and the petitioner replied, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon issued a Resolution on May 14, 2002, dismissing the complaint. The Ombudsman found no basis for the charge of falsification, noting that the petitioner himself had issued certifications confirming the correctness of the resolutions in question. The petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated October 8, 2002, for lack of merit. The Petition: Aggrieved by the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. He sought to nullify the Ombudsman's decisions, arguing that the public respondent gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the Ombudsman misappreciated the facts and issued the assailed resolution and order without factual and legal bases, and failed to find probable cause against the private respondents. The petition also raised an incidental issue regarding the representation of the private respondents by the Solicitor General.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint. Whether there was probable cause to file charges for falsification of public documents and violations of RA 3019 against the respondents.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Resolution dated May 14, 2002, and the Order dated October 8, 2002, of the Office of the Ombudsman are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman: The Supreme Court reiterated that it generally does not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion to determine probable cause unless there is a clear showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the petitioner's arguments were purely factual, revolving around his claim that the Ombudsman erred in finding that he had issued certifications as to the correctness of the resolutions. Petitioner's assertion that he signed the minutes by mistake or inadvertence was deemed "hardly impressive," especially considering that the minutes were approved in a subsequent meeting and he had certified correct excerpts pertaining to Resolution No. 6, s. 1997, twice. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari is limited to questions of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not questions of fact. On the existence of probable cause: The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding that there was no probable cause to file charges. The Ombudsman noted that the petitioner himself had issued certifications confirming the correctness of the resolutions in question, which directly contradicted his claims of falsification and intercalation. The Court found it implausible that the petitioner, as Board Secretary, would have signed the minutes or excerpts thereof through inadvertence, particularly when the alleged insertions were significant and related to financial matters and construction contracts. The Ombudsman's rationale was that the petitioner's own certifications undermined the merit of his complaint, and that the preliminary investigation's purpose is also to protect the innocent from hasty prosecution.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion to determine whether probable cause exists, unless there is a clear showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Factual findings of the Ombudsman are generally respected, especially when supported by evidence such as certifications signed by the complainant.