Title
Alecha vs. Pasion
Case
G.R. No. 164506
Decision Date
Jan 19, 2010
Petitioners alleged municipal officials unlawfully adopted higher salaries despite Midsalip being a fifth-class municipality. Ombudsman dismissed the complaint; SC upheld, citing financial capability and legal compliance.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164506)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioners: Paulino M. Alecha and Precioso M. Tapitan.
    • Respondents: Various municipal officials of the Municipality of Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur, including the mayor, vice mayor, Sangguniang Bayan members, and other local government officers.
  2. Nature of the Complaint:

    • Petitioners filed a criminal complaint before the Ombudsman (Mindanao) on September 12, 2003, alleging that the respondents violated:
      • Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
      • Section 81 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code).
      • Section 10 of RA 6758 (Salary Standardization Law).
      • RA 9137 (Appropriation Act).
  3. Allegations:

    • Respondents unlawfully adopted and collected salaries, representation and travel allowances (RATA), and personnel economic relief assistance (PERA) equivalent to those of special cities or first-class provinces, despite Midsalip being a fifth-class municipality.
    • Petitioners claimed this action was financially unsustainable and adversely affected the delivery of basic services in the municipality.
  4. Ombudsman’s Decision:

    • The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in a joint resolution dated January 27, 2004.
    • Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on April 15, 2004.
  5. Petition Before the Supreme Court:

    • Petitioners filed a petition under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in dismissing their complaint.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the municipal officials.
  2. Whether the Municipality of Midsalip was legally and financially capable of adopting a salary schedule equivalent to that of special cities or first-class provinces.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s decision, ruling that:

  1. The Municipality of Midsalip complied with the legal requirements for adopting a higher salary schedule.
  2. The municipality demonstrated financial capability to sustain the adopted salary scheme.
  3. The Ombudsman’s findings of fact, supported by evidence, are conclusive and should not be disturbed.

Ratio:

  1. Grave Abuse of Discretion:

    • Grave abuse of discretion occurs when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse in the Ombudsman’s decision.
  2. Adoption of Higher Salary Schedule:

    • A fifth-class municipality like Midsalip is not prohibited from adopting a salary schedule equivalent to that of special cities or first-class provinces, provided it complies with the following conditions under Local Budget Circular No. 64:
      • Financial capability of the LGU.
      • Uniform application of the salary schedule.
      • Compliance with budgetary and general limitations on personal services expenditures.
      • Retention of salary grade allocation and steps.
      • Non-alteration of the LGU’s existing classification.
  3. Financial Capability of Midsalip:

    • Evidence showed that Midsalip had substantial savings and surplus accounts, proving its financial capacity to implement the higher salary schedule.
    • The local budget ordinance adopting the salary schedule was duly approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Department of Budget and Management.
    • The Commission on Audit did not disallow or suspend the disbursements.
  4. Ombudsman’s Independence:

    • The Court reiterated the principle of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutory powers, which are constitutionally mandated.
    • Findings of fact by administrative bodies, such as the Ombudsman, are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.
  5. Public Office as a Public Trust:

    • While public officials must serve with integrity and accountability, they are also entitled to protection from unfounded suits.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.