Title
Montero vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 239827
Decision Date
Jul 27, 2022
Mayor Montero appointed losing election candidates as consultants, violating the one-year prohibition. Ombudsman found probable cause for unlawful appointments and graft; Supreme Court upheld the ruling, affirming independence of criminal charges.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239827)

Complaint and Allegations

On August 14, 2015, Augustin M. Cloribel filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Montero, alleging illegal use of public funds, unlawful appointments under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code, and several violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). Cloribel claimed that the appointed consultants were all candidates who lost in the May 2013 elections, thereby violating the one-year prohibition on hiring losing candidates as stipulated in both the Constitution and the Local Government Code.

Evidence of Misconduct

Cloribel alleged that the appointments violated the prohibition on hiring losing candidates and asserted that Montero had conspired with her relatives in the local government to pass resolutions authorizing the appointments retroactively. It was claimed that no proper documentation was maintained for the appointments, including no contractual agreements or budgetary approval for the consultants' salaries, leading to illegal disbursement of funds.

Montero's Defense

In response, Montero denied the allegations and presented arguments invoking opinions from the Department of the Interior and Local Government stating that the prohibition did not apply to daily or casual hires. She also claimed that consultancy positions did not fall under the definition of regular government service. Furthermore, Montero contended that the resolutions passed by the Sangguniang Bayan, which authorized the hiring, should be considered valid.

Ombudsman’s Findings

The Office of the Ombudsman, after investigating the allegations, found sufficient probable cause to indict Montero for four counts of unlawful appointments and violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Ombudsman determined that the essence of the appointments constituted an evasion of the legal prohibitions, thereby necessitating criminal charges.

Reassessment and Movements for Reconsideration

Subsequent efforts by Montero to contest the Ombudsman's findings through a Motion for Reconsideration were denied. Dissatisfied with this outcome, she then filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Legal Standards Applied

The Court emphasized the principle that the Ombudsman has a significant degree of discretion in determining probable cause and may only be overturned in cases of grave abuse of discretion. Key principles also included the separation of criminal and administrative liabilit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.