THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 139396. August 15, 2000]
EFREN O. LOQUIAS, ANTONIO V. DIN, JR., ANGELITO L. MARTINEZ II,
LOVELYN J. BIADOR, GREGORIO FACIOL, JR., petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, and DR. JOSE PEPITO H. DALOGDOG, DR. AURORA BEATRIZ A. ROMANO, MA.
TERESITA C. ABASTAR, JESSICA S. ALLAN, MA. TERESA ANIVERSARIO, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
Before this Court
is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Resolution
dated June 29, 1998 charging herein petitioners for violation of Section 3,
paragraph e of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) which was
issued by the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao and approved by Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto, and the Memorandum dated June 11, 1999 wherein Ombudsman
Desierto disapproved the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor dismissing
Criminal Case No. 24852.
The antecedent
facts are as follows: In a sworn complaint filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao, private respondents Dr. Jose Pepito H. Dalogdog, Dr. Aurora
Beatriz A. Romano, Maria Teresita C. Abastar, Jessica S. Allan and Maria Teresa
Aniversario charged herein petitioners Efren O. Loquias, Antonio V. Din, Jr.,
Angelito I. Martinez II, Lovelyn J. Biador and Gregorio Faciol, Jr. with
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 for their alleged failure to give the salary
increases and benefits provided in Section 20 of the Magna Carta of Public
Health Workers (R.A. 7305) and Local Budget Circulars Nos. 54, 54-A, 56, 60 and
64 for the health personnel of the local government of San Miguel, Zamboanga
del Sur. Herein private respondents were officers of the Association of
Municipal Health Office Personnel of Zamboanga del Sur who instituted the said
complaint in behalf of the 490 members of the said Association. Petitioners
Efren Loquias and Antonio Din, Jr. are the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively,
of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur while petitioners Angelito Martinez II,
Lovelyn Biador and Gregorio Faciol, Jr. are members of the Sangguniang Bayan of
the said municipality.
Docketed as Case
No. OMB-MIN-98-0022, herein public respondent Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto
approved on September 4, 1999 the Resolution dated June 29, 1998 of Graft
Investigation Officer II Jovito A. Coresis, Jr. of the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao finding "probable cause to conclude that the crime of
violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 has been committed by respondents Mayor,
Vice-Mayor, members of the Sangguniang Bayan and Budget Officer of San Miguel,
Zamboanga del Sur" and that accordingly, the appropriate Information be
filed with the Sandiganbayan.[1] The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 24852.
On March 15, 1999,
petitioners filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with prayer to defer arraignment
and pre-trial alleging that they recognize the salary increases of the health
personnel as a mandatory statutory obligation but the salary increases could
not be implemented because of lack of funds and the municipality had incurred overdrafts.
They further argue that the failure to give salary increases and other Magna
Carta benefits were due to circumstances beyond their control and not due to
any manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence on
their part.[2]
In the Memorandum
dated June 11, 1999, Special Prosecution Officer I Jacqueline J.
Ongpauco-Cortel recommended the dismissal of the case which recommendation was
approved by Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos and concurred in by
Special Prosecutor Leonardo P. Tamayo. This recommendation was, however,
disapproved by Ombudsman Desierto on June 18, 1999 stating in his handwriting
that "(T)he crime had obviously been committed, per OMB Mindanao findings,
long before the payment granting that the accused latters’ claim/allegation is
true."[3]
Meanwhile,
petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 14, 1999 of the
Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dated June 29, 1998 alleging
that there is no probable cause in holding that they violated Section 3 (e) of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. They allege that the joint affidavits
of waiver executed by private complainants have made the case of the
prosecution against the accused "too weak which could not even create a
probable cause."[4] Petitioners further allege that the order
disapproving the dismissal of the case constitutes a denial of their motion for
reconsideration.[5]
Alleging that the
order disapproving the dismissal of the case constituted denial of the motion
for reconsideration,[6] petitioners filed the present petition assailing the
Resolution dated June 29, 1998 and the Memorandum dated June 11, 1999 raising
the following assignment of errors:
"I.
THE HONORABLE
OMBUDSMAN WITH DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN APPROVING THE RESOLUTION CHARGING THE
PETITIONERS FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 PAR. (E) OF R.A. 3019 ISSUED AND
APPROVED BY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO.
II.
THE HONORABLE
OMBUDSMAN WITH DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISAPPROVING THE MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER(S)
ISSUED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, CONCURRED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR BUT DISAPPROVED
BY THE OMBUDSMAN."
Petitioners contend
that they recognize the salary increases of the health personnel as a mandatory
statutory obligation but the same could not be implemented due to lack of funds
and the Municipality incurred an overdraft. They further argue that petitioners
Loquias, Din, Martinez, Faciol and Biador were not yet elected as local
officials during the year 1994; hence, they cannot be held liable for
non-payment of salary increases as mandated by the local budget circular which
took effect in the year 1994 before their election.
In its Comment,[7] the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Solicitor
General, alleges that the petition does not comply with Section 5, Rule 7 as
the Verification and the Certification on Non-Forum Shopping were signed only
by petitioner Antonio Din and not by all the petitioners and there is no
showing that petitioner Din was authorized by his co-petitioners to represent
them in this case; that the petition raise factual issues; and that the
municipality had sufficient funds to grant the statutory salary increases and
benefits.
In their Reply,[8] petitioners contend that there was substantial
compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 notwithstanding the fact that only one of the
petitioners signed the verification and certification on forum shopping; and
that the petition does not call for an examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented.
At the outset, it
is noted that the Verification and Certification was signed by Antonio Din,
Jr., one of the petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the Solicitor
General that the petition is defective. Section 5, Rule 7 expressly provides
that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that
he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, etc.[9] Only petitioner Din, the Vice-Mayor of San Miguel,
Zamboanga del Sur, signed the certification. There is no showing that he was
authorized by his co-petitioners to represent the latter and to sign the
certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner Din knew, to the
best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the same or similar
actions or claims filed or pending. We find that substantial compliance will
not suffice in a matter involving strict observance by the rules. The
attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires
personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must show
reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter
disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy
of liberal construction.[10]
Moreover,
petitioners question the act of the Ombudsman in disapproving the resolution
recommending the dismissal of the criminal case. We have ruled that this Court
will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his constitutionally
mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. Otherwise stated, it is beyond
the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman
in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. Such initiative and
independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the
champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service.[11] In Venus vs. Desierto,[12] this Court stated that it ordinarily does not
determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter,
to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts. As held in
the Ocampo case:
"x x x The
rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory
powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon
practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously
hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory
proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints
filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely
swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the
part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an
information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant."[13]
With respect to the
joint affidavits of waiver allegedly executed by private complainants for the
purpose of requesting the Special Prosecutor to move for the dismissal of the
criminal case,[14] this Court ruled in Alba vs. Nitorreda[15] that a joint affidavit of desistance is not binding
on the Office of the Ombudsman and cannot prevail over the provision of law
which categorically allows the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate and
prosecute on its own any act or omission of a public officer or employee,
office or agency which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Melo,
(Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima,
JJ., concur.
[1] Annex, "A", pp. 25-34, Rollo.
[2] Annex "C", pp. 39-47, Rollo.
[3] Annex "B", pp. 35-38, Rollo.
[4] Annex "D", pp. 48-56, Rollo.
[5] 1st par., p. 3, Petition, p. 5, Rollo.
[6] 1st par., p. 3, Petition, p. 5, Rollo.
[7] pp. 132-139, Rollo.
[8] pp. 142-146, Rollo.
[9] SEC.
5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal
party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending
action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if
he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom
to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.
Failure to comply with
the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of
the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts
of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and
shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.
[10] Ortiz vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708.
[11] Ocampo vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725; Alba vs.
Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753; Knecht vs. Desierto,291 SCRA 292.
[12] 298 SCRA 196.
[13] 225 SCRA 725, 730; see also Morong Water District vs.
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 116754, March 17, 2000.
[14] 4th par., pp. 12-13, Petition, pp. 14-15, Rollo.
[15] 254 SCRA 753 (En Banc)