G.R. No. 233446 . February 22, 2023
EDENISON F. FAINSAN, LEONILA D. QUERIJERO, ROLANDO E. JOSEF, CLEOFE A. ABLOG AND ROBERT C. NACIANCENO, PETITIONERS, VS. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN), RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case stems from a complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman against Bayani F. Fernando (Chairperson of the MMDA from 2002 to 2009) and petitioners Edenison F. Fainsan, Leonila D. Querijero, Rolando E. Josef, Cleofe A. Ablog, and Robert Nacianceno, who were MMDA officials and members of the Metro Manila Film Festival (MMFF) Executive Committee, for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The complaint was prompted by a privilege speech of Senator Jinggoy Estrada alleging mismanagement of MMFF funds. Subsequently, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) covering various MMFF Executive Committee expenses from 2003 to 2006, including cash birthday gifts to Fernando totaling Php 1,600,000.00, payments for cultural projects totaling Php 22,642,200.00, and incentive payments. The NDs cited violations of RA 3019, COA circulars, and the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, noting lack of legal bases, supporting documents, and approved payrolls. Petitioners argued that the MMFF Executive Committee was not a public office and thus not subject to COA audit, citing a DOJ Opinion. Fernando contended he performed a proprietary function for a private entity and that MMFF funds were private, though he returned the Php 1.6 million cash gift. The Ombudsman found probable cause and recommended filing of Informations. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari for formal defects and lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

The primary issues, as synthesized from petitioners’ grounds, are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction over the case; (2) Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in: (a) finding that petitioners, as MMFF Executive Committee members, are public officials; (b) asserting jurisdiction over the case; (c) declaring MMFF funds as public funds; and (d) finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause is within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals; thus, the CA correctly dismissed the petition. On the substantive issues, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. It ruled that the MMFF Executive Committee is a public office, as it was created by Executive Order No. 86-09, series of 1986, which is a presidential issuance having the force and effect of law. Petitioners, as MMDA officials designated to the Committee, were discharging official functions. The MMFF funds, derived from amusement taxes, are public funds held in trust for a public purpose—the promotion of the film industry. The Ombudsman correctly exercised jurisdiction over the complaint. Finally, the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was supported by evidence showing petitioners’ manifest partiality and evident bad faith in approving irregular, unauthorized, and unlawful disbursements that caused undue injury to the MMFF funds. The elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019—that the accused are public officers, the act was done in the discharge of official functions, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefit—were sufficiently alleged.