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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212416)

Relevant Dates and Key Documents

NDRRMC requested release of P961,550,000 to Negros Oriental; the Office of the President approved charging the amount to the 2012 Calamity Fund (subject to availability). On June 5, 2012, DBM Regional Office No. VII issued SARO No. ROVII-12-0009202 and a Notice of Cash Allocation for P480,775,000 (50%). On June 18, 2012, DPWH Secretary Singson requested that the recipient LGU not be indicated yet in the SARO pending DPWH evaluation. Following that, Secretary Abad ordered Undersecretary Relampagos to withdraw the SARO and NCA. Relampagos issued a June 19, 2012 letter-advice informing Governor Degamo of withdrawal; on June 29, 2012, DBM RO VII directed return of the P480,775,000 to the National Treasury. Degamo refused to return the funds and, on December 26, 2012, filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging Relampagos with usurpation of authority or official functions. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint by Resolution dated April 19, 2013 and denied reconsideration on January 8, 2014. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on May 7, 2014.

Applicable Legal Framework

Constitutional and statutory backdrop (under the 1987 Constitution): the Ombudsman’s independent investigatory and prosecutorial functions; Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989); Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (RA 379) penalizing usurpation of authority and usurpation of official functions; Republic Act No. 10121 (Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010); the General Appropriations Act of 2012 (RA 10155) and Budget Circular No. 2012-2; Department Order No. 2011-11 (DBM) delegating signature authorities; jurisprudential principles including the doctrine of qualified political agency and standards limiting judicial review of Ombudsman determinations (cases cited: Dichaves, Joson, Tetangco, Ruzol, Gigantoni y Javier, People v. Hilvano, and Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan).

Factual Background and Positions of the Parties

Following executive approval of calamity funding subject to availability, DBM RO VII issued SARO and a 50% NCA to the provincial government. DPWH requested withholding designation of the recipient LGU pending capability assessment. Acting on instructions from Secretary Abad (and with the Office of the President informed), Undersecretary Relampagos withdrew the SARO and NCA by letter-advice and directed repayment of the previously released funds. Governor Degamo refused to return the funds and continued project implementation; he then filed a complaint alleging that Relampagos falsely represented authority of the President and usurped the Executive Secretary’s exclusive prerogative to speak for the President.

Proceedings Before the Ombudsman and Its Findings

Relampagos submitted a counter-affidavit asserting he wrote as Undersecretary for Operations, acted under Secretary Abad’s instructions pursuant to Department Order No. 2011-11, and that the Office of the President was informed of the withdrawal. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding among other points that Relampagos signed in his own name, used the phrase “By Authority of the Secretary,” and made no positive, express, explicit misrepresentation that he was speaking for the President or the Executive Secretary. The Ombudsman concluded Relampagos did not act under pretense of official position nor without legal authority and denied reconsideration.

Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court and Petitioner's Arguments

Petitioner sought judicial review via certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in finding no probable cause. He argued the calamity fund release was governed by RA 10121, the 2012 GAA, and Budget Circular No. 2012-2, which required presidential approval with favorable recommendation of the NDRRMC and did not permit DBM to withdraw a SARO/NCA absent presidential action. He contended the DBM lost jurisdiction once the NCA was issued and that Relampagos usurped the Executive Secretary’s exclusive authority to speak for the President, citing jurisprudence (Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr. and Araullo v. Aquino) to support limits on departmental action.

Respondents’ Positions and Ombudsman Defense

Relampagos and DBM maintained that the withdrawal was made in his capacity as Undersecretary for Operations under Department Order No. 2011-11, which authorized him to sign SAROs, NCAs, and related correspondence on the Secretary’s behalf. Relampagos asserted he acted upon Secretary Abad’s instructions reflecting the President’s direction to strictly enforce GAA provisions on delegation of nationally funded projects only to LGUs capable of implementing them; the President was informed and did not reverse the withdrawal. The Ombudsman defended its exercise of discretion, invoking its constitutional mandate and emphasizing that its determination of probable cause is entitled to deference absent a clear showing of grave abuse.

Standard of Review Applied by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated the established rule of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial determinations, permitting review only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion — a high threshold demanding proof the power was exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner. In special civil actions for certiorari, the Court will not correct factual or legal errors that do not amount to grave abuse.

Legal Analysis under Article 177 — Usurpation of Authority

Article 177 penalizes (1) knowingly and falsely representing oneself as an officer, agent, or representative of a government department (usurpation of authority) and (2) acting under pretense of official position to perform acts without lawful entitlement (usurpation of official functions). The Court found no basis for usurpation of authority: Relampagos is himself a public official (Undersecretary), he signed in his own name (with the notation “By Authority of the Secretary”), and there was no proof of a malicious, false, and knowing representation that he acted as the President’s or Executive Secretary’s personal representative. The Court emphasized that Article 177 applies to “any person” and that good faith is a recognized defense.

Legal Analysis under Article 177 — Usurpation of Official Functions

Regarding usurpation of official functions, the Court considered the statutory elements and applied

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212416)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Certiorari filed by Roel R. Degamo assailing the Office of the Ombudsman’s April 19, 2013 Resolution and January 8, 2014 Order in OMB‑C‑C‑13‑0010.
Original complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman filed December 26, 2012 by Governor Roel R. Degamo against Department of Budget and Management Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions.
Ombudsman dismissed the complaint by Resolution dated April 19, 2013 (docketed OMB‑C‑C‑13‑0010) and denied reconsideration via Order dated January 8, 2014.
Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari on May 7, 2014, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in finding no probable cause.
Supreme Court, Third Division, decision authored by Justice Leonen (G.R. No. 212416, December 05, 2018), reported at 844 Phil. 794; 115 OG No. 46, 12912 (November 18, 2019), dismissed the Petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s April 19, 2013 Resolution and January 8, 2014 Order.
Decision rendered with concurrence of Peralta (Chairperson), Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ.

Statement of Facts

The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council requested release of P961,550,000.00 to Negros Oriental to finance rehabilitation of infrastructures damaged by Typhoon Sendong and a 6.9‑magnitude earthquake.
The Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., approved the request, charging the amount against the Calamity Fund for Fiscal Year 2012, subject to availability.
The Department of Budget and Management (DBM), through Regional Office No. VII, issued on June 5, 2012 Special Allotment Release Order No. ROVII‑12‑0009202 covering the approved amount and issued a Notice of Cash Allocation worth P480,775,000.00 (50% of the approved sum).
On June 18, 2012, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Rogelio L. Singson wrote to DBM Secretary Florencio Abad requesting that DBM not indicate the recipient local government unit (LGU) in the SARO because DPWH needed to evaluate LGUs’ capability to implement projects prior to fund release.
Following that request, Secretary Abad ordered Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos to withdraw the previously issued Special Allotment Release Order and Notice of Cash Allocation.
On June 19, 2012, Relampagos sent a letter‑advice to Governor Degamo informing him that the DBM was withdrawing the SARO because its release did not comply with the guidelines on large‑scale fund releases for infrastructure projects; the withdrawal was effective until DPWH could determine LGU capability.
On June 29, 2012, DBM Regional Office VII Director advised Degamo that the SARO had been withdrawn and ordered the provincial government to return and deposit P480,775,000.00 to the National Treasury.
On July 16, 2012, Degamo informed Relampagos that the provincial government would not be returning the funds and claimed the funds were being illegally withdrawn without higher authorities’ knowledge.
On December 26, 2012, Degamo filed before the Ombudsman a Complaint for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions against Relampagos, alleging that Relampagos falsely posed himself as authorized by the President and usurped the Executive Secretary’s sole authority to write and speak for and on behalf of the President.
In his counter‑affidavit, Relampagos asserted he wrote the letter as DBM Undersecretary for Operations, acted upon Secretary Abad’s instructions, and that the Office of the President was informed of the withdrawal.
The Ombudsman found no probable cause to charge Relampagos because he signed the June 19, 2012 letter in his own name and under the words “By Authority of the Secretary,” made no positive, express and explicit representation, and did not act under pretense of official position or without legal authority.
Ombudsman’s dispositive finding: the complaint against Mario L. Relampagos was dismissed for lack of probable cause; motion for reconsideration denied January 8, 2014.
Petitioner’s position before the Supreme Court: Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion; contention that the calamity fund release was governed by RA No. 10121, the 2012 GAA (RA No. 10155), and DBM Budget Circular No. 2012‑2 requiring Presidential approval with favorable recommendation of the Council, and that no prior DPWH determination was needed before releasing funds; assertion that DBM had relinquished control once the Notice of Cash Allocation was issued and that only the President could suspend or stop further expenditures under Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Respondent Relampagos’ position: he acted as Undersecretary for Operations under Department Order No. 2011‑11 (August 18, 2011), signed under his name and “By Authority of the Secretary,” acted on Secretary Abad’s orders and upon instructions of the President to strictly enforce GAA delegation provisions; the President was informed and neither rejected nor reversed the withdrawal.
Public respondent (Ombudsman) maintained it did not commit grave abuse of discretion and relied on the department order authorizing Relampagos to sign for and on behalf of Abad and asserted its discretionary power to determine whether to file criminal charges absent a clear showing of grave abuse.

Issue Presented

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Complaint for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions filed by Roel R. Degamo against Mario L. Relampagos for lack of probable cause.

Controlling Law and Standards

Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended) (RA No. 379, 1949), which penalizes:
- Usurpation of authority: knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent, or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government (prision correccional, minimum and medium periods).
- Usurpation of official functions: acting under pretense of official position to perform acts pertaining to persons in authority or public officers of the government without being lawfully entitled to do so.
Elements of usurpation of official functions (as stated in Article 177):
- (1) a person performs an act pertaining to a person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or foreign government or agency;
- (2) the person acts under pretense of official position;
- (3) the person acts without being lawfully entitled to do so.
Good faith is a defense to charges under Article 177 (People v. Hilvano; Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan).
Doctrine of qualified pol