THIRD DIVISION
PAULINO
M. ALECHA and G.R. No. 164506
PRECIOSO
M. TAPITAN,
Petitioners,
Present:
CORONA, J., Chairperson,
VELASCO,
JR.,
- v e r s u s
- NACHURA,
PERALTA and
MENDOZA, JJ.
ELMER BEN V. PASION, RODOLFO
M. ELMAN, ANTONIO E.
VALENZUELA, MAYOR ULYSSES
D. PEREZ, VICE MAYOR
STEWART R. PADAYHAG,
SB[1]
MEMBER PABLO MANTOS
SR., SB MEMBER CASIMERO
BAOBAO, SB MEMBER
FILOMENO ROSILLOSA, SB
MEMBER FELICIANO OLING,
SB MEMBER NORBERTO RAMOS,
SB MEMBER LUIS PALONGPALONG,
SB MEMBER ROGELIO BUGTAY,
SB MEMBER OSCAR ATAY,
ABC[2]
PRESIDENT PRIMITIVO
VERDAD, JR., SKF CHAIRMAN
JACKSON PADAYHAG, ABC
PRESIDENT SERGIO DAGOLDOL,
SFK[3]
CHAIRMAN TRISTAN B.
BAGUIO, MUN. SECRETARY
PROTACIO ELMIDULAN, JR.,
MPDC VICENTE LLESIS,
CIVIL REGISTRAR MEDARDO
COLITA, BUDGET OFFICER
RAMONITA B. BAGUIO, MUN.
ENGR. SEGUNDO ARANDID, JR.,
MUN. ASSESSOR WILFREDO
FLORES, MAO ALEJANDRO
JIMENEZ, MUN. ACCOUNTANT AVELINO DEDORO and DSWD[4]
[OFFICER]
SUSAN MAGO,
Respondents. Promulgated:
January
19, 2010
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L
U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
On September
12, 2003, petitioners Paulino M. Alecha and Precioso M. Tapitan filed before
the Ombudsman (Mindanao) a criminal complaint against respondent municipal
officials of the Municipality of Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur for violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019,[5] Section
81 of RA 7160,[6]
Section 10 of RA 6758[7] and RA
9137.[8]
In their letter-complaint,[9]
petitioners averred that respondent municipal officials conspired in unlawfully
adopting and actually collecting the salaries, representation and travel
allowances (RATA) and personnel economic relief assistance (PERA) of public
officials for special cities and/or first class provinces or cities, notwithstanding
the fact that the Municipality of Midsalip had no financial capacity to cover
such expenditures, thus seriously affecting the delivery of basic services
within its jurisdiction.
In a joint resolution[10] dated
January 27, 2004, the Ombudsman (Mindanao) dismissed the complaint against
respondent municipal officials. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration[11] was likewise
denied in a joint order[12] dated
April 15, 2004.
Hence, the present recourse,[13] where
petitioners impute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) in dismissing their letter-complaint against
respondent municipal officials. To buttress their stance, petitioners cite the
admission made by respondent municipal officials that they had been receiving
salaries for special cities even though the Municipality of Midsalip was a fifth-class
municipality.
The petition has no merit.
Grave abuse of discretion is present
when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is
equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
grave, i.e., it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[14] We find
nothing of that sort here.
A fifth-class municipality like
Midsalip is not absolutely prohibited from adopting a salary schedule
equivalent to that of a special city or a first-class province. Local Budget
Circular No. 64 dated January 1, 1997, in conjunction with paragraph 11 of
Local Budget No. 56, allows local government units (LGUs) lower than special
cities and first-class provinces and cities to adopt a salary scheme for
special cities and first-class provinces. The adoption of a higher salary
schedule needs only to comply with the following requirements:
(1) the LGU is financially capable;
(2) the salary schedule to be adopted shall be uniformly
applied to all positions in the in the LGU concerned;
(3) the salary schedule for the special and highly
urbanized cities and first class provinces and cities shall not be higher than
that being adopted by the national government;
(4) in implementing a new and higher salary schedule, the
salary grade allocation of positions and the salary steps of personnel shall be
retained;
(5) the adoption of the higher salary schedule shall be
subject to the budgetary and general limitations on personal services
expenditures mandated under Sections 324 and 325 of RA 7160;
(6) in the case of component cities and municipalities,
the salary schedule to be adopted shall not be higher than that of the province
or city in the case of some municipalities, where they belong and
(7) the adoption of a higher salary schedule shall not in
any manner alter the existing classification of the LGU concerned.
It is beyond cavil that the
Municipality of Midsalip has complied with the above conditions.
Petitioners aver that the
Municipality of Midsalip was financially incapable of implementing a higher
salary schedule but the evidence showed otherwise. Five years into the
implementation of the higher salary schedule, the Municipality of Midsalip had
savings of P 14,913,554.68 in its bank account.[15] Not
only that. The financial capability of the Municipality of Midsalip, as shown
by the certified statement of savings of unobligated balances for the years
2002 and 2003 issued by the Midsalip municipal treasurer and accountant, revealed
repeated surplus accounts in the amounts of P7,709,311.64 and P 5,070,913.23
for the said years, respectively.[16] The
certification of the Midsalip municipal accountant dated January 14, 2003 also stated
that there was no realignment or disbursement of the 20% municipal development
project for personal services expenditures from 1998 to 2002.[17]
Petitioners themselves do not deny
that the local budget ordinance of the Municipality of Midsalip (which adopted the
salary schedule of special cities) was duly approved by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur (thus becoming part of the provincial
budget ordinance of said province) and later, by the Department of Budget and Management.
The Commission on Audit, in turn, after reviewing and auditing the expenditures
of the Municipality of Midsalip (including the assailed salaries and
allowances) did not disallow or suspend the foregoing disbursements and/or
expenditures.
In sum, we find no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) in dismissing the
letter-complaint of petitioners against respondent municipal officials. Settled
is the rule that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman, when duly supported by
evidence, are conclusive.[18] Findings
of fact of administrative bodies (which are equipped with expertise as far as
their jurisdiction is concerned) should be accorded not only respect but even
finality when supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or
preponderant.[19]
We have time and again refrained from
interfering with the Ombudman’s exercise of its constitutionally mandated
investigatory and prosecutory powers.[20] This is
in recognition of the Office of the Ombudsman’s independence and initiative in prosecuting
or dismissing a complaint filed before it.[21]
One last word. Public office is a
public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.[22]
Corollary to this heavy burden, however, is the right of public officials to be
protected from unfounded suits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
Associate Justice Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
[1] Sangguniang Bayan.
[2] Association of Barangay Chairpersons.
[3] Sangguniang Kabataan Federation.
[4] Department of Social Welfare and Development.
[5] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[6] The Local Government Code.
[7] The Salary Standardization Law.
[8] An Act Appropriating the Sum of Ten Billion Nine Hundred Million Pesos as Supplement Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001 and for Other Purposes.
[9] Annex “A” of the petition; rollo, pp. 26-32.
[10] Annex “H” of the petition; id., pp. 122-131.
[11] Annex “I” of the petition; id., pp. 201-212.
[12] Annex “J” of the petition; id., pp. 223-226.
[13] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; id., pp. 4-23.
[14] Duero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131282, 4 January 2002, 373 SCRA 11.
[15] Rollo, p. 58.
[16] Id., p. 59.
[17] Id., p. 60.
[18] Section 27, RA No. 6770.
[19] Casa Filipina Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 99346, 7 February 1995, 241 SCRA 165.
[20] Alba v. Nitoreda, G.R. No. 120223, 13 March 1996, 254 SCRA 753, 765.
[21] Id., pp. 765-766. 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 would 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. (Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 103446-47, 30 August 1993, 225 SCRA 725, 730).
[22] CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Section 1.