Title
Morong Water District vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 116754
Decision Date
Mar 17, 2000
MOWAD accused Sta. Maria and Censon of misusing funds; Ombudsman dismissed the case for lack of evidence. SC upheld the dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161083)

Facts of the Case

On August 3, 1992, Edgard Sta. Maria received a cash advance of P33,190.73 from the Morong Water District for a pipeline extension project. He submitted a partial liquidation of P15,000.00, alleging it was used for related expenses, supported by a reimbursement receipt from Engineer Ricardo Reyes. Subsequently, he reported a total liquidation of P16,790.40 for further project costs, which was authorized by the Board of Directors. Following his ousting on December 14, 1992, a complaint was filed against Sta. Maria and Censon for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and malversation of public funds.

Proceedings Before the Ombudsman

The complaint alleged that Sta. Maria and Censon misappropriated funds intended for the project, claiming that no actual design work was performed and asserting that the money was instead pocketed. In their counter-affidavits, both respondents denied the allegations, with Sta. Maria claiming retaliatory motives behind the complaint. On March 28, 1994, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, citing insufficient evidence for probable cause on the alleged violations.

Ombudsman’s Resolution and Motion for Reconsideration

On May 27, 1994, the Ombudsman affirmed its dismissal of the motion for reconsideration, highlighting that the evidence presented supported the respondents’ actions in liquidating the funds. It emphasized that the diversion of funds had been authorized and concluded that there was no conspiracy or misappropriation as claimed by the petitioner.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Certiorari

The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the Ombudsman had acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. The petitioner argued that the decision disregarded evidence that would establish a prima facie case of malversation.

Legal Standards and Findings

The Supreme Court highlighted that its review of the Ombudsman’s findings is limited to issues of law, as per Republic Act No. 6770. The Court underscored that the Ombudsman’s factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. It noted that the evidence indicated

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.