G.R. No. 169338, January 20, 2009.
NEW BIAN YEK COMMERCIAL, INC. represented by DANFORD S. SY, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), RODOLFO V. GONZALES, JR., Mayor of the Municipality of Valencia, Negros Oriental, ROLANDO B. OBAÑANA, Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Valencia, Negros Oriental, ERWIN VERGARA, Provincial Attorney of Negros Oriental, ALEX ABELIDO and DOMINADOR ABELIDO, Respondents.

FACTS

On August 13, 2000, the Municipality of Valencia, Negros Oriental, awarded a contract for the improvement of its waterworks system to Legacy Construction, owned by respondents Alex and Dominador Abelido. Legacy, through its project engineer Jaime Lu, purchased pipes from petitioner New Bian Yek Commercial, Inc. Lu issued two personal checks as payment, which were dishonored. Legacy ignored petitioner’s demand for payment. Petitioner requested Mayor Rodolfo Gonzales, Jr. to pay Legacy’s obligation using the retention money withheld by the municipality for the project. Mayor Gonzales referred the matter to Provincial Attorney Erwin Vergara. On January 29, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against Legacy, Alex Abelido, Lu, and the municipality in the RTC. On February 4, 2003, Vergara issued an opinion stating that Lu was not authorized to purchase supplies for the project, and petitioner could not invoke a supplier’s lien, recommending the release of the retention money to Legacy. On February 7, 2003, the RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, prohibiting the release of any payment to Legacy. The writ was issued on February 11, 2003. Despite this, Mayor Gonzales, adopting Vergara’s recommendation, instructed Municipal Treasurer Rolando Obañana to release the retention money to Legacy on March 12, 2003. Petitioner filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause, holding that Vergara’s opinion was in accord with law and that Gonzales and Obañana acted in good faith. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against respondents.

RULING

The petition is partially granted. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s resolutions, except as to respondent Vergara. The Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause against Gonzales, Obañana, and the Abelidos. The February 11, 2003 writ of preliminary attachment created a lien over the retention money in favor of petitioner and prohibited its release. By releasing the money despite the writ, Gonzales and Obañana impaired petitioner’s lien, caused undue injury, and extended unwarranted benefits to Legacy and the Abelidos, constituting probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. However, the Court upheld the dismissal as to Vergara, as he rendered his opinion before the RTC order and did not participate in the release of the funds. The Ombudsman was directed to file the necessary information against respondents Gonzales, Obañana, Alex Abelido, and Dominador Abelido.