G.R. No. 212416 - Degamo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212416)

Ombudsman Proceedings

Governor Degamo filed a complaint for usurpation of authority or official functions, alleging that Relampagos falsely represented presidential authority and usurped the Executive Secretary’s prerogative. Relampagos countered that he signed in his own name “By Authority of the Secretary,” acted under Secretary Abad’s instructions, and informed Malacañang. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding no false or express representation, no pretense of official position beyond lawful authority, and no usurpation. A motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petition for Certiorari and Issues on Review

Degamo sought certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in dismissing the complaint. He contended that the calamity fund release was governed by RA 10121 and the 2012 GAA, requiring only presidential and council approval, and that DPWH had no authority to condition release. Relampagos maintained lawful authority under Department Order No. 2011-11 and Secretary Abad’s directive, and that the President was duly informed. The core issue: whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in finding no probable cause for usurpation under Article 177.

Standard of Judicial Review

Under the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770, the Ombudsman enjoys broad discretion to determine probable cause. The Supreme Court applies a non-interference policy and reviews only for grave abuse of discretion—an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power. Errors of law or fact not amounting to grave abuse cannot be corrected by certiorari.

Analysis – Usurpation of Authority (RPC, Art. 177[a])

Article 177(a) punishes knowingly and falsely representing oneself as a government officer or agent. The Court agreed with the Ombudsman that Relampagos signed in his own name with “By Authority of the Secretary,” without malicious misrepresentation of presidential or executive power. As a public official, he did not falsely claim an office he did not hold. No evidence supported the element of malicious or false representation, so no usurpation of authority.

Analysis – Usurpation of Official Functions (RPC, Art. 177[b])

Article 177(b) penalizes acting under pretense of official position to perform acts without lawful entitlement. Degamo argued only the President could withdraw a SARO. The Court applied Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan, which recognizes that lawful agency delegations permit executive functions by subordinates. Department Order No. 2011-11 expressly authorized Relampagos, as Undersecretary for Operations, to sign and withdraw SAROs and notices on behalf of the Secretary. Acting on Secretary Abad’s instructions—rooted in presidential direction to enforce GAA provisions—Relampagos lawfully issued the letter.

Qualified Political Agency and Good Faith

Under the doctrine of