Case Digest (G.R. No. 143581)
Facts:
On December 8, 2003, petitioners Cesar T. Villanueva, Pedro S. Santos, and Roy C. Soriano lodged a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Hagonoy, Bulacan's Mayor Felix V. Ople and Vice-Mayor Josefina R. Contreras. They accused the officials of violating Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as well as various provisions of the Local Government Code (LGC). The petitioners contended that the Mayor submitted the Municipality’s annual budget for Fiscal Year 2003 late–specifically on June 11, 2003, rather than the October 16 deadline mandated by Section 318 of the LGC. They further alleged that Vice-Mayor Contreras did not obtain legal counsel's opinion for the budget and instead sought approval from the Sangguniang Bayan for what they deemed an "Illegal Annual Budget." They argued that absence of enabling resolutions meant that expenditures from January 1, 2003, until the budget's approval were unauthorized, resulting in undCase Digest (G.R. No. 143581)
Facts:
- Filing of the Complaint
- On December 8, 2003, petitioners Cesar T. Villanueva, Pedro S. Santos, and Roy C. Soriano filed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman.
- They charged incumbent Mayor Felix V. Ople and Vice-Mayor Josefina R. Contreras of Hagonoy, Bulacan, with violations under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and various provisions of the Local Government Code (LGC)—specifically Sections 305-(a), 318, and 351.
- The complaints centered on the alleged delay in submitting the annual budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, which was said to have been submitted on June 11, 2003, instead of the mandated deadline of October 16 of the preceding year, as required by Section 318, paragraph 2 of the LGC.
- Petitioners further alleged that Vice-Mayor Contreras had failed to refer the budget to the chief legal counsel, and that the Sangguniang Bayan had approved what they termed an “Illegal Annual Budget for 2003.”
- Based on these allegations, petitioners claimed that disbursements of public funds during January 1, 2003 to July 11, 2003 and/or August 27, 2003 were illegal because of the absence of an enabling resolution for using the prior year’s budget.
- They sought to hold the respondents liable for the alleged illegal disbursements, asserting that these actions were done with evident bad faith and/or gross negligence, resulting in undue injury to the municipality.
- Respondents’ Position and Counter-Affidavits
- Respondents filed counter-affidavits (both dated February 27, 2004) asserting that the actual submission of the budget occurred on June 26, 2003—not June 11—due to the implementation of COA Circular No. 2002-2003, which required a revision of accounting procedures under the “New Government Accounting System.”
- They argued that the delay was necessary to gather financial data from the previous year, which was essential for preparing a proper budget.
- The counter-affidavits maintained that the Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bulacan had eventually passed and approved the budget, effective January 1, 2003.
- They further contended that the Local Government Code did not require the vice-mayor to submit the budget to the legal officer for review, and that disbursements made in the absence of an approved budget were legal under Section 323 of the LGC.
- Investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman
- The deputy ombudsman for Luzon conducted a preliminary investigation under case OMB-L-C-03-1550-L.
- In his resolution, the deputy ombudsman found no probable cause against the respondents, noting that petitioners failed to specify which disbursements were allegedly illegal.
- The investigation concluded that the budget for the preceding year was automatically reenacted pursuant to Section 323 of the LGC, thereby authorizing the disbursements made during the period in question.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the resolution was denied, with the ombudsman emphasizing that undue injury must be specified, quantified, and proven to the point of moral certainty.
- Petition for Review and the Issues Raised
- Petitioners elevated the matter by filing a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the April 21, 2004 Resolution and the August 27, 2004 Order of the deputy ombudsman.
- The petition raised multiple issues, questioning the validity of reenactment of the budget under Section 323, the existence of legal remedies for the alleged violation of Section 318 of the LGC, and the propriety of denying requests for clarificatory hearings and subpoenas in the preliminary investigation.
Issues:
- Whether the admitted flagrant violation by Mayor Ople of Section 318 of the LGC—allegedly aided by Vice-Mayor Contreras—can be validated by the automatic reenactment provision under Section 323 of the LGC.
- Whether there exists any specific provision in the LGC that provides a legal remedy to validate the mayor’s violation of the budget submission deadline.
- Whether comparable constitutional mandates exist at the National Government level regarding (a) the prohibition of treasury disbursements without a legal appropriation, (b) the reenactment of the preceding year’s budget, and (c) the deadline for the submission of the proposed budget by the President.
- Whether disbursements made in the absence of a legally enacted annual budget can be exempted from being characterized as “undue injury,” given that a municipality must continue to function and perform its duties.
- Whether petitioners are precluded from seeking the Office of the Ombudsman’s broad investigatory powers concerning the exact amount of allegedly illegal disbursements, despite relying on constitutional and statutory provisions.
- Whether the omission of a clarificatory hearing by the Ombudsman, aimed at ascertaining the material facts and the exact amount of alleged illegal disbursements, constitutes clear and serious legal error.
- Whether the denial of a subpoena to municipal officials—purported to provide testimony on the disbursements for FY 2003—amounts to grave legal error, especially when such subpoenas are claimed to transform the investigation into a “fishing expedition.”
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)