View full case

EFREN O. LOQUIAS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners, Efren O. Loquias, Antonio V. Din, Jr., Angelito I. Martinez II, Lovelyn J. Biador, and Gregorio Faciol, Jr. The petitioners were charged with the violation of Section 3, paragraph e of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charges were filed by the private respondents, Dr. Jose Pepito H. Dalogdog, Dr. Aurora Beatriz A. Romano, Maria Teresita C. Abastar, Jessica S. Allan, and Maria Teresa Aniversario, who alleged that the petitioners failed to provide salary increases and benefits to health personnel as mandated by the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers and local budget circulars. The private respondents, who were officers of an association representing the health personnel, filed the complaint on behalf of the 490 members of the association.

The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao approved a resolution finding probable cause to charge the petitioners and filed the appropriate information with the Sandiganbayan. The petitioners, in their motion for reinvestigation, argued that the failure to provide the salary increases and benefits was due to lack of funds and overdrafts, and not due to any malicious intent or negligence on their part. A special prosecution officer recommended the dismissal of the case, but the recommendation was disapproved by Ombudsman Desierto.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that there was no probable cause to charge them and that the joint affidavits of waiver executed by the private complainants weakened the case against them. Dissatisfied with the order disapproving the dismissal of the case, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the court, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in approving the resolution charging the petitioners with violation of Section 3, par. (e) of R.A. 3019.

  2. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disapproving the memorandum recommending the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioners.

RULING:

  1. No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause to charge the petitioners with violation of Section 3, par. (e) of R.A. 3019, recognizing the independence and discretionary authority of the Ombudsman in prosecutorial matters.

  2. No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s decision to disapprove the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor to dismiss the case, emphasizing that the Ombudsman has the authority to either prosecute or dismiss complaints.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Discretionary Authority of the Ombudsman The Ombudsman has constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers, and the exercise of these powers is normally not subject to judicial interference.

  2. Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion Grave abuse of discretion requires a showing that the discretion exercised was done in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner.

  3. Non-Forum Shopping Rule Compliance with Section 5, Rule 7, requires that each plaintiff or principal party must certify under oath regarding non-forum shopping unless shown otherwise with reasonable cause.

  4. Independence in Prosecution The Ombudsman, acting as the champion of the people, is beholden to no one and maintains the integrity of public service throughout its investigative and prosecutory functions.

  5. Affidavits of Desistance Such affidavits are non-binding on the Office of the Ombudsman, which retains the authority to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of public officials that appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient irrespective of desistance by complainants.