G.R. No. 147148 - Goyena vs. Ledesma-Gustilo

Petitioner Nenita R. Orcullo was a duly elected City Councilor of the Second District of Davao City.
She was elected on May 8, 1995, and served as the Chair of the Committee on Women Welfare and Development of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, Davao City.

In September 1995, the City Government of Davao City, represented by the Vice-Mayor, named respondent Virginia Yap Morales as team leader of a study group.
The study group was tasked with conducting an “Action Study Towards Policy Formulation on the Welfare and Development of Women” to aid in the legislative process.
Due to financial constraints in 1996, petitioner suspended the project.

On February 18, 1997, respondent Virginia Yap Morales requested assistance from the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, alleging the following against petitioner:

Unceremonious and informal separation as Coordinator of the Research and Documentation Project in August 1996.
Unilateral cessation of dialogue and refusal to pay additional services rendered between August and October 1996, as evidenced by a handwritten note received on September 11, 1996.
Failure to pay back wages due for services rendered in 1995.

Morales was among women activists volunteering for the codification of the Women Code.
Morales had been endorsed and later appointed as team leader through a series of administrative arrangements, including her service as technical assistant and subsequent appointment as Clerk II in petitioner’s office.
Morales had been paid all due salaries even during the suspension period of the project.

On February 5, 1998, Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. issued an order directing petitioner to pay Morales back wages amounting to P70,800.00, citing that Morales had effectively performed as team leader/coordinator and consultant despite the absence of a formal employment relationship.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on March 2, 1998, arguing:

There was no employer-employee relationship between her and Morales.
The Office of the Ombudsman lacked the authority to issue an order compelling her to pay a money claim.

The motion was denied by the Deputy Ombudsman on March 23, 1998.
On April 15, 1998, graft investigator Marilou B. Unabia issued a memorandum terminating Morales’ request for assistance and recommended the filing of a case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioner.
The recommendation was approved on April 17, 1998, leading to the filing of the case.
Respondents failed to submit comments within the stipulated time, leading the Court, on July 28, 1999, to hold that they had waived their right to respond.

The central issue arose over whether the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao had the jurisdiction or possessed the legal authority to order petitioner personally to pay Morales back wages.
It was also questioned whether the imposition of such an order interfered with the proper channels for money claims, which should fall under the jurisdiction of the courts or the appropriate government agencies, rather than the Office of the Ombudsman.

Whether the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by issuing an order directing petitioner to pay back wages to respondent Morales.
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman, under R.A. No. 6770 Section 15(5), has the authority to order a public official to satisfy a money claim for wages, salaries, or compensations.
Whether petitioner, being a duly elected public official, could be held personally liable for the payment of back wages for services rendered by Morales, who was engaged in assisting with a legislative project.
Whether the filing of a graft case against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 was proper under the circumstances.