G.R. No. 239871 , March 18, 2021
LYNNA G. CHUNG, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Lynna G. Chung, an official of the Philippine National Railways (PNR), filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Office of the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution dated March 14, 2018, and its Order dated May 8, 2018, which denied her motion for partial reconsideration. The Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner and five other PNR officials for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The charge stemmed from alleged irregularities in payments to Pandrol Korea for the purchase of a rail fastening system, rail clips, and insulators through direct contracting. Specifically, the Ombudsman found that petitioner and former PNR General Manager Manuel Andal authorized full payments to Pandrol Korea and the charging of the cost of opening a letter of credit to PNR’s account, in violation of the contract’s Payment Schedule (paragraphs 5(b) and (d)) and Section 42.5 of the IRR-A of R.A. No. 9184 . Petitioner argued she did not act with manifest partiality, bad faith, or negligence; that there were no irregularities; that opening a letter of credit did not constitute payment; that the absence of a COA disallowance indicated regularity; and that she caused no undue injury or unwarranted benefit.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause that petitioner violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The dissenting opinion found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman and voted to dismiss the petition. The Ombudsman’s duty is to investigate and establish probable cause, defined as facts and circumstances that would excite a reasonable belief that the person charged is guilty. This finding need not be based on clear and convincing evidence but on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime was committed by the accused. The Ombudsman’s finding was supported by documents on record, specifically petitioner’s letters dated June 8, 2009, and February 23, 2010, authorizing the debit of the full contract amounts (US$1,155,000.00 and US$225,000.00) from PNR’s accounts to cover payment to Pandrol Korea, without adhering to the contract’s payment schedule requiring a 15% advance payment and the remaining 85% payable upon presentation of shipment documents. Petitioner’s defense that she was merely following her superior’s directive and that the letters were for opening a letter of credit was insufficient, as the letters explicitly authorized full payment and her office had a duty to ensure payments complied with contract terms. The Court’s power of review over Ombudsman findings is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion, which is capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. No such abuse was present. The validity of petitioner’s defenses is best ventilated in the Sandiganbayan where her case is pending.