G.R. No. 158189 - Kalalo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Petitioner Roberto B. Kalalo, an employee of Pablo Borbon Memorial Institute of Technology (PBMIT), now Batangas State University (BSU), filed a complaint affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Respondents include key school officials such as Dr. Ernesto M. De Chavez (President), Dr. Virginia M. Baes (Executive Vice-President), Dr. Rolando L. Lontok, Sr. (Vice-President for Academic Affairs), Dr. Porfirio C. Ligaya (Vice-President for Extension Campus Operations), Professor Maximo C. Panganiban (Dean and Campus Administrator for Districts 1 and 2), Dr. Amador M. Lualhati (University Secretary), and Marcelo L. Agustin (Researcher, Office of the BSU President).

During the 129th General Meeting of the Board of Trustees held on January 21, 1997, petitioner later discovered anomalies:

A final printed copy of the minutes, forwarded by respondent Marcelo Agustin upon order of respondent De Chavez, was delivered to petitioner long after the meeting.
The original minutes consisted of eight pages, while the version in petitioner’s possession allegedly had nine pages, indicating an insertion.

Petitioner claimed that the additional page contained one or more resolutions that were not part of the approved authentic record.

Resolution No. 6, s. 1997 – Ratification of a referendum dated August 4, 1996, for adjustments in various document fees (e.g., admission and testing fee, transcript of records, certification, diploma, etc.).
Resolution No. 25 – Authorization for the President of PBMIT/BSU to deposit the college’s income in government depositary banks and to open designated accounts.
Resolution No. 26 – Approval of construction contracts with C.S. Rayos Construction and General Services, involving specific project amounts (P2,693,642.90 and P968,283.63 respectively).
Petitioner asserted that Resolutions Nos. 25 and 26 were illicitly intercalated into the minutes and that deviations from the usual procedure (whereby petitioner, as Board Secretary, customarily certified the minutes after proper attestation) raised suspicion.

The Office of the Ombudsman initially dismissed petitioner’s complaint in its Resolution dated May 14, 2002, emphasizing that petitioner’s own certifications of the resolutions cast serious doubt on his allegations.
Despite petitioner’s refusal to sign the suspicious minutes and his further allegations (including claims of a forged signature), the resolutions—most notably Resolution No. 25—were implemented without the petitioner’s certification.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner on August 16, 2002 was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated October 8, 2002.
Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion—and thus acted with a lack or an excess of jurisdiction—in rejecting petitioner’s claims.
Whether the determination of probable cause by the Ombudsman, in light of alleged factual inconsistencies, was tainted by procedural defect or arbitrary judgment.

Whether petitioner’s evidence, particularly regarding the alleged falsification of the minutes and the unintended signature on the questioned document, was sufficient to warrant the findings of probable cause.
Whether the certification of the resolutions by petitioner himself nullified his allegations of fraud and irregularity.

Whether the refusal to file criminal information against the respondents was justified based on a sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Whether the petition should have been evaluated on pure questions of fact (which are generally within the discretion of the Ombudsman) or if there was indeed a clear case of grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Whether the Solicitor General’s role as counsel for the public respondent (the Office of the Ombudsman) was appropriate and within its legal mandate.