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. DALOGDO…

Loquias versus Office of the Ombudsman

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Efren Loquias, Antonio Din, Junior, Angelito Martinez the Second, Lovelyn Biador, and Gregorio Faciol, Junior — the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur — against the Office of the Ombudsman and a group of private complainants led by Dr. Jose Pepito Dalogdog. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the Ombudsman's resolution finding probable cause to charge them with violation of Section 3, paragraph e of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for failing to grant the salary increases and benefits owed to local health personnel under the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers, and to annul the Ombudsman's disapproval of the recommendation to dismiss the criminal case. The case matters because it gathers in one decision two rules every bar candidate must carry: the strict requirement of a proper certification against forum shopping, and the hands-off stance of the courts toward the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory discretion.

Procedural History

The private respondents, officers of the Association of Municipal Health Office Personnel of Zamboanga del Sur, filed a sworn complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, docketed as Case Number OMB-MIN-98-0022, charging the petitioners with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Graft Investigation Officer Jovito Coresis, Junior issued a resolution dated June 29, 1998 finding probable cause, and Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved it, so that the matter was docketed before the Sandiganbayan as Criminal Case Number 24852. The petitioners moved for reinvestigation. Special Prosecution Officer Jacqueline Ongpauco-Cortel recommended dismissal in a memorandum dated June 11, 1999, a recommendation approved by Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert Kallos and concurred in by Special Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo, but Ombudsman Desierto disapproved it in his own handwriting on June 18, 1999. The petitioners also moved for reconsideration of the June 29, 1998 resolution, and treated the disapproval as a denial of that motion. They then went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the resolution and the memorandum.

Facts

The private respondents, suing on behalf of 490 members of their association, complained that the municipal officials of San Miguel had failed to give the salary increases and benefits provided in Section 20 of the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers and in several Local Budget Circulars for the health personnel of the local government.

The petitioners answered that they recognized the salary increases as a mandatory statutory obligation, but that the increases could not be implemented for lack of funds, the municipality having incurred overdrafts. They added that the failure was due to circumstances beyond their control and not to manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. They also pointed out that several of them were not yet elected local officials in 1994, when the local budget circular took effect, and so could not be held liable for non-payment before their election.

Later, the private complainants executed joint affidavits of waiver, which the petitioners invoked as having weakened the prosecution's case. The Ombudsman nonetheless stood by his finding of probable cause, and the petitioners came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement that the certification against forum shopping be signed by the principal party, where only one petitioner signed it without authority from his co-petitioners.
• Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the resolution charging the petitioners and in disapproving the recommendation to dismiss the criminal case.
• Whether or not the joint affidavits of waiver executed by the private complainants bind the Office of the Ombudsman and compel dismissal of the case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, on the certification against forum shopping, provides:

Section 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.

This provision governs the first issue, because the Court measures the petition's verification and certification against its exact terms.

The same Section 5 continues, on the consequences of non-compliance:

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.

This sentence supplies the sanction the Court applies to the defective certification.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the petition defective. Only petitioner Din, the Vice-Mayor, signed the verification and certification, and there was no showing that his co-petitioners authorized him to represent them or to sign for them. Nor could it be presumed that he knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had similar actions pending. The Court stressed that the attestation requires personal knowledge by the party who executed it, that the petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign, and that utter disregard of the rules cannot be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. Substantial compliance would not suffice in a matter involving strict observance of the rules.

On the second issue, the Court declined to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. It is beyond the ambit of the Court to review the Ombudsman's discretion in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint, for that initiative and independence are inherent in an officer who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service. The Court explained that the rule rests not only on respect for those constitutional powers but on practicality, since otherwise the courts would be swamped by innumerable petitions assailing the Ombudsman's findings of probable cause or dismissals.

On the third issue, the Court held that a joint affidavit of desistance is not binding on the Office of the Ombudsman and cannot prevail over the provision of law that 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.

Doctrine

First, the certification against forum shopping must be executed under oath by the plaintiff or principal party himself, or by one duly authorized to represent the others; the attestation demands personal knowledge, and substantial compliance will not excuse a certification signed by one petitioner without authority over his co-petitioners.

Second, the courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers; the Ombudsman's discretion to prosecute or to dismiss is beyond the ambit of judicial review, absent grave abuse of discretion.

Third, a joint affidavit of desistance does not bind the Office of the Ombudsman and cannot prevail over the law allowing it to investigate and prosecute on its own any illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient act or omission of a public officer or employee.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, leaving the Ombudsman's resolution and disapproval undisturbed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the Ombudsman, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service — that is the reason courts keep their hands off his probable-cause findings. Examiners use this case for the strict certification against forum shopping and for the rule that an affidavit of desistance cannot tie the Ombudsman's hands.