GR 139396; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139396 ; August 15, 2000
EFREN O. LOQUIAS, ANTONIO V. DIN, JR., ANGELITO L. MARTINEZ II, LOVELYN J. BIADOR, GREGORIO FACIOL, JR., petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, and DR. JOSE PEPITO H. DALOGDOG, DR. AURORA BEATRIZ A. ROMANO, MA. TERESITA C. ABASTAR, JESSICA S. ALLAN, MA. TERESA ANIVERSARIO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, officers of the Association of Municipal Health Office Personnel of Zamboanga del Sur, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao against petitioners, the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur. The complaint alleged a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for the petitioners’ failure to implement the salary increases and benefits mandated by the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers (R.A. 7305) and pertinent Local Budget Circulars for the municipality’s health personnel. The Ombudsman-Mindanao found probable cause and directed the filing of an Information with the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, arguing that the non-implementation was due to a lack of municipal funds and overdrafts, not due to manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence. The Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal of the case, but Ombudsman Aniano Desierto disapproved this recommendation. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was effectively denied by the Ombudsman’s disapproval, prompting them to file this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to charge petitioners under R.A. No. 3019 and in disapproving the recommendation for dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On a procedural ground, the petition was defective for non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping, as only one petitioner signed the verification and certification without proof of authority to represent the others. On substantive grounds, the Court held that the determination of probable cause is a function constitutionally vested in the Ombudsman. Judicial review of such a determination is limited to checking for grave abuse of discretion. The Court found none, as the Ombudsman’s finding was based on the evidence that the statutory obligation to grant benefits existed and was not implemented.
The petitioners’ defense of lack of funds and their non-tenure during the initial effectivity of the circulars involve factual assessments best left to the Ombudsman’s discretion during the preliminary investigation. Furthermore, the alleged joint affidavits of waiver or desistance executed by some complainants do not bind the Ombudsman, as it has the independent authority to prosecute cases of public interest. The Ombudsman’s act of disapproving the dismissal recommendation, after finding that the crime had been committed based on the investigation record, was within its discretionary power and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.