Degamo v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roel R. Degamo, Governor of Negros Oriental, filed a Complaint against Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions. The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council requested P961,550,000.00 from the Calamity Fund for the rehabilitation of infrastructures damaged by Typhoon Sendong and an earthquake. The Office of the President approved the request, and the DBM issued a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) and a Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) for P480,775,000.00. Subsequently, upon request from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to evaluate local government units' capability to implement projects, DBM Secretary Florencio Abad ordered Relampagos to withdraw the SARO and NCA. Relampagos informed Governor Degamo of the withdrawal, citing non-compliance with guidelines for large-scale infrastructure fund releases. Degamo refused to return the funds, alleging illegal withdrawal. Degamo claimed Relampagos falsely represented himself as authorized by the President and usurped the Executive Secretary's function. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed Degamo's complaint for lack of probable cause, finding that Relampagos signed the withdrawal letter in his own name and "By Authority of the Secretary," without making a false representation or acting without legal authority. The Ombudsman denied Degamo's Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Degamo filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint, asserting that the funding assistance was a calamity fund governed by specific laws, and that the DBM's authority to release funds did not include revoking what the President had approved. He also claimed Relampagos usurped the President's prerogative to stop expenditures.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to indict private respondent for usurpation of authority or official functions. Whether private respondent Mario L. Relampagos committed usurpation of authority under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether private respondent Mario L. Relampagos committed usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. The April 19, 2013 Resolution and January 8, 2014 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Abuse of Discretion and the Ombudsman's Determination of Probable Cause: The Supreme Court reiterated its policy of non-interference with the Office of the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause, as this falls within its constitutional mandate and executive function. The Court will only intervene upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, characterized as arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic. In this case, the petitioner failed to substantiate such an abuse, as the Ombudsman's findings were based on the evidence presented and relevant laws. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and defers to the Ombudsman's assessment of evidence. On the Charge of Usurpation of Authority: The Court found that the elements of usurpation of authority, specifically "knowingly and falsely represent[ing] himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the government," were not met. Private respondent Relampagos, as the DBM Undersecretary for Operations, did not falsely represent himself. He signed the letter in his own name and "By Authority of the Secretary." There was no malicious misrepresentation, as he was a public official acting within his delegated authority, not pretending to be someone he was not. The facts presented did not constitute the crime of usurpation of authority. On the Charge of Usurpation of Official Functions: The Court analyzed the elements of usurpation of official functions: (1) performing an act pertaining to a public officer, (2) under pretense of official position, and (3) without being lawfully entitled to do so. While Relampagos performed an act pertaining to a public officer (withdrawing the SARO), the Court found he did not act under pretense of official position nor without lawful entitlement. He acted upon instructions from Secretary Abad, who was himself acting upon the President's directive, consistent with the doctrine of qualified political agency. Furthermore, Department Order No. 2011-11 explicitly authorized Relampagos to sign such documents on behalf of the Secretary. The Court also found that Relampagos acted in good faith, as evidenced by his adherence to the President's directive to ensure local government units had the capability to implement projects, and that petitioner Degamo, by refusing to return the funds, acted in bad faith.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The elements of usurpation of authority require a knowing and false representation, while usurpation of official functions require performing an act pertaining to a public officer under pretense of official position without lawful entitlement. Acting under proper delegation and in good faith negates these charges.