Tolentino v. Loyola
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Eloisa L. Tolentino, then Vice-Mayor of Carmona, Cavite, filed an administrative complaint against respondent municipal officials, including the Mayor, Municipal Budget Officer, Municipal Treasurer, Municipal Accountant, Municipal Administrator, Municipal Agriculturist, Human Resource Officer, Community Affairs Officer, and Sangguniang Bayan members. The complaint alleged violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, and administratively for grave misconduct, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and falsification of official documents. The core of the dispute centered on the alleged illegal creation of twenty-four (24) unappropriated positions and the subsequent appointment and payment of salaries to individuals occupying these positions, which petitioner claimed were not validly created. 2. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman on November 9, 1999. After the respondents filed their counter-affidavits and the petitioner filed her replies, the Ombudsman, on May 23, 2000, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Ombudsman's decision on December 3, 2001. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioner was denied by the Court of Appeals on May 28, 2002. 3. The Petition: The present case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure filed with the Supreme Court. The petitioner seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the questioned positions were not validly created and that the respondents should be dismissed from service for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and falsification of public documents. Petitioner contends that the creation of the positions was not expressly provided for in the Appropriation Ordinance No. 006-98 (1999 Annual Budget) and that the Sangguniang Bayan did not intend to include them. She further argues that the subsequent inclusion in the Plantilla and the approval of appointments by the Civil Service Commission were tainted with illegality and constituted falsification. Respondents, on the other hand, invoked the law of the case doctrine due to a prior dismissal of a related criminal case, argued that the administrative charge was abated by the re-election of the Mayor, and asserted the finality of the Ombudsman's decision in administrative cases where the respondent is absolved.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the questioned positions were created by circumstances. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that respondents should be dismissed from the service for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and falsification of public documents.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed, as is the Decision of the Ombudsman.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the questioned positions were created by circumstances: The Court found that the questioned positions were indeed created. Evidence showed that the Mayor requested the creation of 24 positions, and while not all were created by a separate ordinance, their creation was effectively made when the Sangguniang Bayan included them in the 1999 Plantilla of Positions under Appropriation Ordinance No. 006-98. The Court noted that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) approved the appointments to these positions, which rendered questions regarding the validity of the creation of positions moot and academic, as the CSC is empowered to look into such validity. Furthermore, the Court cited jurisprudence, specifically Cortes v. Bartolome, where a similar situation of an initially inexistent position being cured by subsequent creation and revalidation of appointment, ultimately approved by the CSC, was upheld. The Court emphasized that the appointments were approved by the CSC, giving them the stamp of finality, and that the inclusion of the positions in subsequent budget ordinances further affirmed their creation. On the issue of whether respondents should be dismissed from service for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and falsification of public documents: The Court ruled that respondents could not be held administratively liable. Since the positions were deemed validly created and the appointments were confirmed by the CSC, the payment of salaries to the personnel who rendered services was proper and legal. The Court reasoned that the Budget Officer, Treasurer, Accountant, Administrator, and Agriculturist acted in accordance with the law when they processed and allowed the payment of salaries. The Court also stated that the appointments made by the Mayor and the selection process by the Board could not be considered grave misconduct or dishonesty, as there was no transgression of established rules of action, and the CSC's approval indicated no such transgression. Had the respondents refused to pay the salaries of employees who had rendered service, they could have been held liable for neglect of duty. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondents' official actions, from creation of positions to payment of salaries, were all in accordance with the law.
Main Doctrine
A decision of the Ombudsman absolving a respondent of an administrative charge is final and unappealable, and a petition for review under Rule 43 is not the proper remedy. While a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of to assail the Ombudsman's decision for grave abuse of discretion, the instant petition failed to show such abuse.