CHRISTOPHER H. PICCIO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, DARELL BAJALAN DELA FLOR, NELIA F. BASAÑES, AND EDNA ESCANER, RESPONDENTS.

Piccio versus Office of the Ombudsman

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Christopher Piccio, the incumbent Mayor of the Municipality of Belison in Antique, against the Office of the Ombudsman and three municipal officials — former Mayor Darell Dela Flor, Municipal Engineer Nelia Basañes, and Municipal Accountant Edna Escaner. Piccio had charged them with violation of the anti-graft law and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, arising from their use of the unexpended balance of a national assistance fund to finance an additional road project. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and Piccio came to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it gathers in one place the settled rules on the proper remedy against Ombudsman rulings, the narrow office of the writ of certiorari, and the deference owed to the Ombudsman's factual findings.

Procedural History

Piccio filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713, and dishonesty. In a Joint Resolution dated March 29, 2021, the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal charge for lack of probable cause and the administrative charges for lack of substantial evidence. Piccio's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated September 2, 2022.

Piccio then went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition: as to the criminal aspect, certiorari was the wrong remedy because such petitions against Ombudsman rulings in non-administrative cases must be filed with the Supreme Court; as to the administrative aspect, the petition was proper but lacked merit. Piccio's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On April 18, 2018, then Mayor Dela Flor received from the Department of Finance a notice of authority to debit the 2018 Local Government Support Fund Assistance to Municipalities in the amount of 9,276,693 pesos. Dela Flor certified a road upgrading project in Belison, Antique, funded from that amount, with an approved budget for the contract of 9,276,693 pesos. Triple-Double Construction and Supply won the bidding at 6,029,219.83 pesos, and a contract was executed on November 16, 2018. The road project was completed on March 22, 2019.

Meanwhile, on January 31, 2019, while the first project was still being completed, the Municipality's Bids and Awards Committee invited bids for an additional works project on the adjacent road, with an approved budget of 3,247,473.17 pesos — the variance between the original budget and the actual contract price. Triple-Double again won, at 3,241,344.43 pesos.

Piccio assumed office on July 1, 2019 and approved full payment of the additional works on August 15, 2019. Four days later, the regional office of the Department of the Interior and Local Government wrote him, noting that the first project was already complete and questioning the use of the variance for a second contract. Piccio held the ten percent retention fee and sought clarification; the Department later asked that the variance be reverted to the Bureau of Treasury. Piccio then charged the respondents with graft, dishonesty, and violation of the ethical standards law.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Ombudsman's dismissal of the administrative complaint against the respondents for insufficiency of evidence.
• Whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the Court of Appeals' ruling on the administrative aspect of the Ombudsman's resolution.
• Whether or not the Ombudsman's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the anti-graft law, provides:

Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

This is the criminal charge the Ombudsman dismissed for lack of probable cause, finding no manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence.

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides in its pertinent portion:

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. — (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties: (c) Justness and sincerity. — Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.

The Court noted that this provision speaks of norms of conduct, and that no allegation or evidence supported its violation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means capricious and whimsical judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction, exercised arbitrarily by reason of passion, prejudice, or hostility, so patent as to amount to evasion of a positive duty. The Court of Appeals merely applied established rules and jurisprudence, so it did not act capriciously.

On the criminal aspect, the Court reiterated the settled rule that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in non-administrative cases; the remedy is a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals therefore correctly dismissed that aspect.

On the second issue, the Court held that Piccio availed of the wrong remedy. Certiorari is available only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and the proper mode of elevating a certiorari petition to the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising only questions of law. The Court stressed the distinction:

Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.

Since Piccio questioned not the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals but its ruling on the use of the variance, the petition had to be dismissed outright.

On the third issue, the Court held that even if the petition were treated as correctly filed in the interest of justice, it would still fail, because the issue is factual and the Court is not a trier of facts. The findings of fact of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, absent any of the recognized exceptions. On dishonesty, the Court defined it as the concealment or distortion of truth showing lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, or intent to violate the truth. Here the respondents' good faith was consistent with the documentary evidence: they believed the variance could fund the additional works, and that belief, even if later shown to be erroneous, was genuine and disclosed no concealment or distortion.

Doctrine

• A petition for certiorari questioning the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman ruling must be filed with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, which has no jurisdiction over Ombudsman orders and decisions in non-administrative cases.
• Certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment; where the error is one of law or fact, appeal is the remedy.
• The proper mode of elevating a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising only questions of law.
• The Ombudsman's factual findings are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, and are accorded great weight and respect absent the recognized exceptions.
• Dishonesty requires concealment or distortion of truth showing lack of integrity or intent to defraud; a genuine belief in the propriety of one's act, even if later proven erroneous, negates it.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed; the respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment, and that Ombudsman factual findings stand on substantial evidence. Examiners use this case to test the proper remedy against Ombudsman rulings and the limits of certiorari.