G.R. Nos. 210220-21, April 6, 2016
EDWARD THOMAS F. JOSON, Petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GOV. AURELIO M. UMALI, ALEJANDRO R. ABESAMIS, EDILBERTO M. PANCHO, MA. CHRISTINA G. ROXAS, and FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edward Thomas F. Joson filed criminal and administrative complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents Governor Aurelio M. Umali, Provincial Administrator Alejandro R. Abesamis, Consultant Atty. Ferdinand R. Abesamis, Provincial Treasurer Edilberto M. Pancho, and Officer-in-Charge Ma. Cristina G. Roxas of the Provincial Accountant’s Office of Nueva Ecija. The charges included Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Unlawful Appointment under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code, and Grave Misconduct. The complaints arose from the appointment of Ferdinand as Consultant-Technical Assistance in the Office of the Governor through consultancy contracts dated July 2, 2007, and February 28, 2008. Joson alleged that Ferdinand was disqualified from government re-employment due to his dismissal from service as a Senior State Prosecutor under Administrative Order No. 14 (August 27, 1998), which carried perpetual disqualification. Joson contended that the appointment was unlawful, the contracts were invalid, and the retroactive effectivity of the second contract violated rules. He further claimed that respondents processed and approved honoraria payments to Ferdinand, causing undue injury to the province. Respondents countered that Ferdinand’s engagement was a consultancy contract, not a government appointment subject to civil service rules, and that Governor Umali relied in good faith on the Provincial Legal Office’s opinion. They also explained that the February 28, 2008 contract was a renewal intended to take effect on January 2, 2008, with the date being inadvertently left blank and later notarized on February 28, 2008.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal and administrative complaints against the respondents for lack of sufficient evidence and lack of merit.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaints. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman’s findings were supported by evidence and consistent with law. On the criminal charges, the Court agreed that there was no probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , as the elements of the offense were not established. Respondents did not act with manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence, and Ferdinand’s consultancy did not constitute a public office subject to disqualification rules. The charge of unlawful appointment under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code also failed, as Ferdinand’s engagement was a contract for services, not an appointment to a government position. On the administrative charge of Grave Misconduct, the Court found no substantial evidence to prove corruption or willful intent to violate the law. Governor Umali’s reliance on the legal opinion of the Provincial Legal Office negated bad faith. Additionally, the Court noted that Administrative Order No. 14 dismissing Ferdinand had been reversed and set aside by the Office of the President per its Resolution dated March 11, 2010, affirming instead a prior resolution strongly admonishing Ferdinand. Thus, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints.