The Supreme Court affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman’s broad discretion in investigating public officials. It emphasized that courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman’s findings of probable cause unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. This ruling underscores the Ombudsman’s crucial role in maintaining public accountability and integrity by allowing it to independently pursue cases against erring officials without undue judicial intervention, thus ensuring that those in power are held to the highest standards of conduct.

When Hiring Becomes a Crime: Questioning Appointments and Abuse of Authority

This case revolves around Leonila Paredes Montero, the former mayor of Panglao, Bohol, who faced criminal charges for appointing four consultants who had lost in the recent elections. Augustin M. Cloribel filed a complaint alleging that these appointments violated the one-year prohibition on appointing losing candidates to government positions. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Montero for unlawful appointments under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, which prohibits public officials from using their office to give unwarranted benefits or cause undue injury.

Montero argued that the appointments were for consultancy services, which are not covered by the prohibition, and that she relied on the resolutions passed by the Sangguniang Bayan authorizing the hirings. She also cited opinions from the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) to support her defense. However, the Ombudsman found that the appointed consultants performed executive functions and were not merely casual employees. This finding led to the determination that Montero acted with partiality and evident bad faith, causing undue injury to the government.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, reiterated the principle of non-interference with the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutional mandate. This principle is rooted in the recognition that the Ombudsman is an independent constitutional body tasked with investigating and prosecuting erring public officials. As the Court stated in Dichaves v. Office of the Ombudsman:

As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutional mandate. Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) give the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials and government employees. The rule on non-interference is based on the “respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman[.]”

The Court emphasized that to overturn the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, it must be shown that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. In Cambe v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court defined grave abuse of discretion as:

Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

The Court found no such grave abuse of discretion in Montero’s case. The Ombudsman had substantial evidence to support the finding of probable cause for both unlawful appointments and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court cited Casing v. Ombudsman, which discussed the evidentiary requirement to establish probable cause:

In line with the constitutionally-guaranteed independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and coupled with the inherent limitations in a certiorari proceeding in reviewing the Ombudsman’s discretion, we have consistently held that so long as substantial evidence supports the Ombudsman’s ruling, [their] decision should stand.

The Court agreed with the Ombudsman’s assessment that the appointments were not mere job orders and that Montero acted with partiality and evident bad faith. Despite Montero’s reliance on the resolutions of the Sangguniang Bayan, the Ombudsman correctly noted that she had the option not to appoint the losing candidates and that she failed to ensure their qualifications before hiring them. This demonstrated a clear preference for the individuals, leading to unwarranted benefits and undue injury to the government.

Moreover, the Court addressed the issue of the administrative case filed against Montero, where the Court of Appeals found her guilty of simple misconduct. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions. As stated in Paredes v. Court of Appeals:

It is indeed a fundamental principle of administrative law that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. One thing is administrative liability; quite another thing is the criminal liability for the same act.

The Court clarified that while a prior dismissal of an administrative case may be pleaded to abate criminal liability, this is only applicable if there is a finding in the administrative case that the elements of the crime are not present. In this case, the Court of Appeals did not make such a categorical finding, and the Ombudsman explicitly held that Montero acted with evident bad faith and partiality. Therefore, the ruling in the administrative case could not be used to reverse the finding of probable cause.

Finally, the Court noted that Informations had already been filed against Montero, rendering the petition moot. Once a criminal action is initiated in court, jurisdiction over the case lies with the court, and any disposition of the case rests within its exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion. The Court cited Crespo v. Mogul, which explained this rule:

The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case… the determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against Montero, emphasizing the importance of respecting the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate and the independence of administrative and criminal proceedings. The decision serves as a reminder to public officials that they must act with integrity and impartiality and that any abuse of authority will be subject to scrutiny and prosecution.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Leonila Paredes Montero for unlawful appointments and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
What is probable cause?	Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded. It is based on such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.
What does grave abuse of discretion mean?	Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
What is Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019?	Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 prohibits public officials from causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of their official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
What is the effect of filing an Information with the Sandiganbayan?	Once an Information is filed with the Sandiganbayan, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case, and any disposition of the case rests within its exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion.
Are administrative cases and criminal cases related?	Administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission. An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. However, a finding in the administrative case that the elements of the crime are not present may be pleaded to abate criminal liability.
What was the basis for the charges against Montero?	The charges were based on Montero’s appointment of four consultants who had lost in the recent elections, allegedly violating the one-year prohibition on appointing losing candidates to government positions.
What was Montero’s defense?	Montero argued that the appointments were for consultancy services, which are not covered by the prohibition, and that she relied on resolutions passed by the Sangguniang Bayan authorizing the hirings.

This case reinforces the importance of upholding the independence and authority of the Office of the Ombudsman in its pursuit of public accountability. By consistently deferring to the Ombudsman’s findings unless grave abuse of discretion is evident, the Supreme Court ensures that public officials are held to the highest standards of ethical conduct and that any deviations from these standards are met with appropriate legal consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LEONILA PAREDES MONTERO vs. THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND AUGUSTIN M. CLORIBEL, G.R. No. 239827, July 27, 2022