Title
Supreme Court
Degamo vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 212416
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2018
Governor Degamo challenged Ombudsman's dismissal of his complaint against DBM's Relampagos for withdrawing disaster funds; SC upheld Ombudsman's ruling, citing no grave abuse of discretion.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 140863)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Release of Calamity Funds
    • The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council requested the release of ₱961,550,000.00 from the 2012 Calamity Fund to rehabilitate infrastructures in Negros Oriental damaged by Typhoon Sendong and a magnitude-6.9 earthquake.
    • The Executive Secretary approved the release, charging it against the Calamity Fund “subject to availability.”
  • Issuance and Withdrawal of SARO and NCA
    • On June 5, 2012, DBM Region VII issued Special Allotment Release Order No. ROVII-12-0009202 covering the full approved amount and a Notice of Cash Allocation for 50% (₱480,775,000.00).
    • On June 18, 2012, DPWH Secretary Singson requested DBM not to indicate the beneficiary LGU pending capability evaluation; Secretary Abad then ordered Undersecretary Relampagos to withdraw the SARO and NCA.
    • Relampagos sent a June 19, 2012 letter-advice withdrawing the SARO “effective until” DPWH completes its evaluation; DBM Region VII directed Governor Degamo to return the ₱480.775 M on June 29, 2012.
    • Governor Degamo refused on July 16, 2012, accusing Relampagos of illegally usurping higher authority.
  • Ombudsman Proceedings
    • On December 26, 2012, Degamo filed an Ombudsman complaint for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions against Relampagos.
    • The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause on April 19, 2013, finding Relampagos signed in his own name “By Authority of the Secretary” and made no false or explicit representation.
    • Degamo’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 8, 2014.
  • Supreme Court Petition
    • Degamo filed a petition for certiorari on May 7, 2014, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman and asserting DBM lost jurisdiction once the NCA was issued under RA 10121 and the 2012 GAA.
    • Relampagos defended that he acted as Undersecretary for Operations under Department Order No. 2011-11, upon Secretary Abad’s instructions and with the President duly informed.
    • The Ombudsman maintained its wide discretion in determining probable cause and invoked the same delegation order.

Issues:

  • Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Degamo’s complaint for usurpation of authority or official functions.
  • Whether Relampagos’ withdrawal of the SARO and NCA constitutes usurpation of authority or official functions under Article 177, Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.