GR 140240; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140240 ; October 18, 2007
RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, JULIAN Q. TAJOLOSA, HERMILO S. BALUCAN and AVELINO C. CASTILLO, Petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and CARLOS E. INFANTE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, members of the interim board of directors of the Kabankalan Water District (KWD), were found guilty of simple misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman. The charge stemmed from their enactment and approval of Board Resolutions No. 5, s. 1992 and No. 8, s. 1993, which granted the interim manager a housing allowance, a representation and travel allowance (RATA), and an extraordinary and miscellaneous expense (EME) allowance. The Ombudsman, citing Civil Service Commission resolutions which declared such additional compensation illegal under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198 (The Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973), imposed a one-month suspension.
Petitioners sought reconsideration, arguing their actions were authorized under paragraph 2.4 of LWUA Resolution No. 21, s. 1991, which stated that the interim manager’s compensation “shall be as determined by the [water district] Board of Directors.” The Ombudsman denied their motion. Petitioners subsequently filed this petition for certiorari and/or prohibition directly with the Supreme Court on October 19, 1999, challenging the Ombudsman’s resolution and order.
ISSUE
Did the Office of the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioners guilty of simple misconduct and suspending them for one month?
RULING
No, the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability. The legal logic is clear: the authority of the board of directors under LWUA guidelines cannot contravene an express statutory prohibition. Section 13 of P.D. 198 explicitly prohibits the grant of RATA, EME, and other similar allowances to officers and employees of a water district, except for per diems. The cited LWUA resolution, which allows the board to determine compensation, must be read in harmony with this overriding law. It cannot be interpreted as a license to grant benefits expressly forbidden by statute.
While the petition was technically filed directly with the Supreme Court in violation of the rule established in Fabian v. Desierto (which requires appeals from Ombudsman administrative decisions to be filed with the Court of Appeals), and while the penalty imposed (one-month suspension) is typically final and unappealable under the Ombudsman’s rules, the Court opted to relax procedural technicalities to address the substantive merits in the interest of justice. This exception is permitted to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. However, on the merits, petitioners’ defense failed. Their reliance on the LWUA resolution was misplaced, as no administrative issuance can validate an act that a substantive law expressly prohibits. The Ombudsman’s decision was therefore upheld as a correct application of the law.