G.R. No. 153809 ; July 27, 2011
ELOISA L. TOLENTINO, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA, Municipal Mayor, DOMINGO C. FLORES, Municipal Budget Officer, ALICIA L. OLIMPO, Municipal Treasurer, ANNALIZA L. BARABAT, Municipal Accountant, AMADOR B. ALUNIA, Municipal Administrator, NENITA L. ERNACIO, Municipal Agriculturist, AMELIA C. SAMSON, Human Resource Officer IV, EDWIN E. TOLENTINO, Community Affairs Officer IV, DOMINGO R. TENEDERO and ROEL Z. MANARIN, Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Members, All from Carmona, Cavite, Respondents.

FACTS

On November 9, 1999, petitioner Eloisa L. Tolentino, then Vice-Mayor of Carmona, Cavite, filed a Complaint-Affidavit against the respondents (Municipal Mayor, other municipal officials, and Sangguniang Bayan members) for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Public Documents, and administratively for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Falsification of Official Documents. The complaint stemmed from the creation and filling of certain municipal positions. On October 6, 1998, respondent Mayor Roy M. Loyola requested the Sangguniang Bayan for the creation of twenty-four (24) unappropriated positions for inclusion in the 1998 Plantilla. On November 23, 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan passed Municipal Resolution No. 061-98 approving only 19 out of the 24 requested positions, specifically setting aside five positions under the Department of Agriculture (one Agriculture Chief Center IV, one Farm Foreman, and three Farm Worker II). Despite this disapproval, on April 5, 1999, the Personnel Selection Board, chaired by Mayor Loyola and with respondent SB members, filled these five positions and made appointments. The appointments were approved by the Civil Service Commission, and the other respondent municipal officials allowed and caused the payment of salaries to these appointees. Petitioner alleged the respondents, through concerted efforts, made it appear the non-existent positions were created, leading to unlawful salary payments. The Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision. Petitioner now argues before the Supreme Court that the positions were never validly created by the Sangguniang Bayan and that the subsequent inclusion of these positions in the plantilla and budget ordinances constituted falsification.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the administrative complaint against the respondents for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Public Documents, based on the creation, filling, and funding of the five disputed positions.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, as well as the Decision of the Ombudsman. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the respondents’ administrative liability by substantial evidence. The Court found that the creation of the disputed positions was validated by subsequent legislative acts of the Sangguniang Bayan. Specifically, Appropriation Ordinance No. 006-98 (the 1999 Annual Budget) and Appropriation Ordinance No. 001-99 (the 2000 Annual Budget) contained appropriations for the salaries of the five positions, thereby curing any initial defect in their creation. The Court ruled that an appropriation ordinance, which carries the force of law, can create positions. The Sangguniang Bayan, by enacting these budgets with specific allocations for the salaries of the disputed positions, effectively created and authorized them. The Court further noted that the funding for the initial salaries came from legitimate savings of the municipal budget, which is allowed under the law. The approval of the appointments by the Civil Service Commission also lent regularity to the act. The Court emphasized that administrative offenses require proof by substantial evidence, and in this case, the evidence did not convincingly show that the respondents acted with malice, dishonesty, or gross neglect in the performance of their duties. The respondents’ reliance on the appropriation ordinances and the CSC approvals negated any finding of bad faith or manifest partiality necessary for administrative liability.