G.R. No. 174567 March 12, 2009
SEVERINO B. VERGARA, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, SEVERINO J. LAJARA, and VIRGINIA G. BARORO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Severino B. Vergara, a member of the City Council of Calamba, filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against Calamba City Mayor Severino J. Lajara, City Treasurer Virginia G. Baroro, and others for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The complaint arose from the purchase by the City Government of Calamba of several lots from Pamana, Inc. and Prudential Bank and Trust Company for a new city hall site. The City Council issued Resolution No. 115 authorizing Mayor Lajara to negotiate for a site and later Resolution No. 280 authorizing him to purchase specific lots from Pamana for ₱129,017,600. On November 13, 2001, Mayor Lajara executed a Memorandum of Agreement, Deed of Sale, Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, and Deed of Assignment of Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) related to the purchase. Petitioner alleged these documents were not ratified by the City Council. Petitioner raised several issues: (1) some Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were registered under Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company (PSEDC), not the sellers, and a signature on a Deed of Assignment appeared forged; (2) no relocation survey was conducted prior to the sale; (3) two lots had been previously offered at a much lower price (₱300 per sq.m.); (4) some TCTs covered road lots with restrictions on disposal; and (5) existing roads were included in the sale. The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated March 17, 2004, found no probable cause, noting the properties were already transferred to the city, the price of ₱3,800 per sq.m. was lower than the ₱6,000 zonal valuation, and payment terms were not onerous. The Ombudsman denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated August 22, 2005, ruling Mayor Lajara acted with prior authorization from the Sanggunian, the alleged overpriced lots were creek easement lots excluded from the lower offer, new titles were issued to Pamana, and the absence of a relocation survey did not affect validity. Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against respondents.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed, and its findings are generally not reviewed absent a clear case of grave abuse. The essential elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 are: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits. The Court found no grave abuse in the Ombudsman’s conclusion that these elements were not present. Mayor Lajara acted with prior authorization from the Sanggunian through resolutions. The purchase price was reasonable, being lower than the zonal valuation. The terms allowed the city to take possession immediately with a small down payment and no interest. The transfer of titles to the city was accomplished. The alleged issues—like the non-ratification of contracts, inclusion of road lots, and absence of a relocation survey—did not, by themselves, establish bad faith, partiality, or negligence warranting criminal prosecution. The Ombudsman’s factual findings and evaluation of evidence were not arbitrary or capricious. Thus, the petition was denied for lack of merit.