G.R. No. 127457 April 13, 1998
MAYOR FELIPE K. CONSTANTINO, petitioner, vs. Hon. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., JAIME L. MADRIDANO, PRIMITIVA L. ESPINOSA, RAFAEL J. SUSON, SR., PABLO V. OCTAVIO, LEO G. INGAY, BENJAMIN C. ASGAPO and WILFRED P. ESPINOSA, respondents.

FACTS

On February 22, 1996, the Sangguniang Bayan of Malungon, Sarangani Province, issued Resolution No. 21 authorizing petitioner Mayor Felipe K. Constantino to enter into a negotiated contract for the lease/purchase of one fleet of heavy equipment (composed of seven specified units) after two failed public biddings. The resolution required the contract to be concurred in by the Sangguniang Bayan before implementation. On February 28, 1996, Mayor Constantino entered into a Lease Agreement with Norlovanian Corporation for the seven units of heavy equipment. Simultaneously, the corporation executed an “Undertaking” binding itself to convey ownership of the equipment to the Municipality at the end of the lease term. Both signed documents did not state the term of the lease, the rental rate, or the purchase price. The equipment was delivered and accepted on March 4, 1996, with an acceptance document signed by the Mayor, the corporation president, and four municipal councilors, among others. On April 18, 1996, the Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 38 requesting the Mayor to operate the newly acquired equipment. However, on June 6, 1996, the Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 47 stopping all payments related to the equipment, declaring it illegally acquired and inoperative.
Earlier, on April 23, 1996, a Letter-Complaint and Joint Affidavit were filed with the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao by Vice-Mayor Primitiva L. Espinosa and several councilors (including some who had voted for Resolutions No. 21 and 38), accusing Mayor Constantino and Norberto Lindong of the Norlovanian Corporation of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and of Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service, and Gross Neglect of Duty. The complaint alleged that the Mayor entered into a lease agreement without authority, with a six-year term and a monthly rental of P257,111.11, and that the Municipality had already paid over P2.1 million, causing undue injury.
The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated October 22, 1996, found Mayor Constantino guilty of grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and/or gross neglect of duty and dismissed him from the service. The Mayor filed this special civil action for certiorari seeking to invalidate the Ombudsman’s Resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding Mayor Constantino guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and ordering his dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s Resolution, and exonerated Mayor Constantino from the administrative charges.
The Court found that the Ombudsman’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence and were tainted with arbitrariness. The key points of the ruling are:
1. Authority to Contract: Mayor Constantino acted under the explicit authority granted by Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 21, which authorized him to enter into a negotiated contract for the lease/purchase of heavy equipment. The subsequent Resolution No. 38, requesting him to operate the equipment, constituted a ratification and concurrence by the Sangguniang Bayan with the Lease Agreement and Undertaking he had executed.
2. Participation of Complainants: Several of the complainants (Vice-Mayor and Councilors) who filed the administrative case had themselves voted in favor of Resolutions No. 21 and 38, which authorized and ratified the Mayor’s actions. Their subsequent complaint accusing him of acting without authority was contradictory and indicative of a political vendetta.
3. Defective Ombudsman Proceedings: The Ombudsman’s Resolution was based primarily on the complainants’ unverified Joint Affidavit, which contained factual inaccuracies (e.g., claiming the resolution authorized a purchase, not a lease). The Mayor’s detailed Counter-Affidavit, which explained the terms (total cost P8.9M, 18% interest, diminishing balance over 6 years) and the concurrence of the Sanggunian, was not properly considered. The Ombudsman also failed to conduct a formal investigation or hearing where the Mayor could confront witnesses and present evidence, violating his right to due process.
4. Lack of Substantial Evidence: There was no substantial evidence to prove the elements of grave misconduct or gross neglect of duty. The Mayor acted pursuant to Sanggunian resolutions. The claim that the equipment was defective and inoperative was belied by the Delivery and Acceptance document signed by councilors and the fact that the equipment was used for projects until stopped by Resolution No. 47.
5. Political Nature of Charges: The Court noted the charges appeared politically motivated, aimed at removing the Mayor from office outside the electoral process. The Court refused to be an instrument of politics or injustice.
The Ombudsman’s Resolution and the earlier Order of preventive suspension were reversed and set aside. Mayor Constantino was exonerated.