G.R. No. 134104 . September 14, 1999
NENITA R. ORCULLO, petitioner, vs. HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., in his capacity as the DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, Davao City, and Mrs. VIRGINIA YAP MORALES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nenita R. Orcullo was a duly elected City Councilor of Davao City and chair of the Committee on Women Welfare and Development. In September 1995, the City Government, represented by the Vice-Mayor, named respondent Virginia Yap Morales as team leader of a study group for an action study towards policy formulation on women’s welfare and development, in aid of legislation. Due to financial constraints in 1996, petitioner caused the suspension of the project. On February 18, 1997, respondent Morales wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao requesting assistance to collect back wages, alleging that petitioner unceremoniously separated her as Coordinator, closed further dialogue, and refused to pay back wages for services rendered in 1995. Petitioner replied that respondent was appointed as technical assistant and later as clerk II, received all salaries due, and the project was suspended due to financial constraints. On February 5, 1998, respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. issued an order directing petitioner to personally pay Morales back wages of P70,800.00. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, a graft investigation officer recommended filing a case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioner, which the Deputy Ombudsman approved. Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering petitioner personally to pay back wages to respondent Morales and in approving the recommendation to file an anti-graft case against petitioner.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Office of the Ombudsman has no authority or jurisdiction over the subject matter of a money claim for back wages. Such a claim against petitioner personally is within the jurisdiction of a proper court, and if against the City Government, within the jurisdiction of the City Council or other proper government agency. Section 15(5) of R.A. No. 6770 , which authorizes the Ombudsman to request assistance and information from government agencies, does not vest authority to directly order payment of money claims. Furthermore, the Deputy Ombudsman abused his office by approving a recommendation to file an anti-graft case with his own office against petitioner, who was merely exercising her duties as a local legislator. Petitioner could not be personally liable for the wages of a team leader assisting in legislation, as she was not the hiring party, and her refusal to pay was not in bad faith or evident bad faith to constitute a violation of R.A. No. 3019 . Any further prosecution was pure harassment. Although petitioner could have elevated the matter to the Ombudsman in Manila, the threat of prosecution created an immediate urgency for judicial relief. The Court annulled the orders of the Deputy Ombudsman dated February 5, 1998, and March 23, 1998, as well as the graft investigator’s memorandum dated April 15, 1998, and enjoined him from further acting on the case.