G.R. No. 164506 ; January 19, 2010
PAULINO M. ALECHA and PRECIOSO M. TAPITAN, Petitioners, vs. ELMER BEN V. PASION, RODOLFO M. ELMAN, ANTONIO E. VALENZUELA, MAYOR ULYSSES D. PEREZ, VICE MAYOR STEWART R. PADAYHAG, SB MEMBER PABLO MANTOS SR., SB MEMBER CASIMERO BAOBAO, SB MEMBER FILOMENO ROSILLOSA, SB MEMBER FELICIANO OLING, SB MEMBER NORBERTO RAMOS, SB MEMBER LUIS PALONGPALONG, SB MEMBER ROGELIO BUGTAY, SB MEMBER OSCAR ATAY, ABC PRESIDENT PRIMITIVO VERDAD, JR., SKF CHAIRMAN JACKSON PADAYHAG, ABC PRESIDENT SERGIO DAGOLDOL, CHAIRMAN TRISTAN B. BAGUIO, MUN. SECRETARY PROTACIO ELMIDULAN, JR., MPDC VICENTE LLESIS, CIVIL REGISTRAR MEDARDO COLITA, BUDGET OFFICER RAMONITA B. BAGUIO, MUN. ENGR. SEGUNDO ARANDID, JR., MUN. ASSESSOR WILFREDO FLORES, MAO ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ, MUN. ACCOUNTANT AVELINO DEDORO and DSWD OFFICER SUSAN MAGO, Respondents.

FACTS

On September 12, 2003, petitioners Paulino M. Alecha and Precioso M. Tapitan filed a criminal complaint before the Ombudsman (Mindanao) against respondent municipal officials of the Municipality of Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur, for alleged violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 81 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code), Section 10 of RA 6758 (Salary Standardization Law), and RA 9137 (a supplemental appropriation law). Petitioners alleged that the respondents conspired to unlawfully adopt and collect salaries, representation and travel allowances (RATA), and personnel economic relief assistance (PERA) equivalent to those for special cities and/or first-class provinces or cities, despite Midsalip being a fifth-class municipality with no financial capacity to cover such expenditures, thereby seriously affecting the delivery of basic services. The Ombudsman (Mindanao) dismissed the complaint in a joint resolution dated January 27, 2004, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a joint order dated April 15, 2004. Petitioners then filed the present petition, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to the Ombudsman, citing respondents’ admission that they received salaries for special cities even though Midsalip was a fifth-class municipality.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman (Mindanao) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against the respondent municipal officials.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Court held that grave abuse of discretion requires a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, which was not present in this case. The Court emphasized that a fifth-class municipality like Midsalip is not absolutely prohibited from adopting a salary schedule equivalent to that of a special city or first-class province, provided it complies with the requirements under Local Budget Circular No. 64 dated January 1, 1997, in conjunction with paragraph 11 of Local Budget No. 56. These requirements include: (1) financial capability of the local government unit (LGU); (2) uniform application of the salary schedule to all positions; (3) the salary schedule not exceeding that adopted by the national government; (4) retention of salary grade allocations and steps; (5) compliance with budgetary limitations under Sections 324 and 325 of RA 7160; (6) for component cities and municipalities, the salary schedule not exceeding that of the province or city to which they belong; and (7) the adoption not altering the existing classification of the LGU. The Court found that Midsalip complied with these conditions, as evidenced by substantial savings (₱14,913,554.68 in its bank account five years into implementation), certified surplus accounts for 2002 and 2003, and certifications showing no improper realignment of funds. Moreover, the local budget ordinance adopting the higher salary schedule was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur and the Department of Budget and Management, and the Commission on Audit did not disallow the disbursements. The Court reiterated that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman, when supported by evidence, are conclusive, and administrative bodies’ expertise should be accorded respect and finality. The Court also noted its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutory powers, while acknowledging that public officials have the right to be protected from unfounded suits.