The Supreme Court dismissed a Petition for Review and affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling that exonerated three former officials of the Municipality of Belison, Province of Antique, from administrative liability over the use of an assistance fund's variance.
The Court held that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy in questioning the CA ruling on the administrative aspect of the case, and that even if the petition were treated as correctly filed, it would still not prosper because the issue raised was factual in nature.
The Case
The complaint was filed against respondents, former Municipal Mayor Darell Bajalan Dela Flor (Dela Flor), Municipal Engineer Nelia F. Basaiies (Basaiies), and Municipal Accountant Edna Escaner (Escaner), of the Municipality of Belison, Province of Antique. They were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and dishonesty. The complaint alleged that respondents violated the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Memorandum Circular No. 2018-61.
On April 18, 2018, former Municipal Mayor Dela Flor received from the Department of Finance a Notice of Authority to debit an account called the 2018 Local Government Support Fund Priority Programs and Projects-Assistance to Municipality Batch 1 (LGSF-AM) in the amount of PHP 9,276,693.00.
Dela Flor issued a Certification dated August 7, 2018 identifying the project Local Road Upgrading Barangay Poblacion-Barangay Ipil, Belison, Antique (Road Project) to be funded from the LGSF-AM, with an Approved Budget for the Contract of PHP 9,276,693.00. Triple-Double Construction and Supply (Triple-Double) won the bidding with its bid of PHP 6,029,219.83. A Contract of Agreement was executed on November 16, 2018, and the Road Project was completed on March 22, 2019.
On January 31, 2019, the Municipality's Bids and Awards Committee issued an Invitation to Bid for the project Local Road Upgrading Barangay Poblacion-Barangay Ipil, Belison, Antique-Additional Works (Additional Works). This second project had an ABC of PHP 3,247,473.17, funded from the variance between the ABC of the Road Project and the actual contract price. Triple-Double was also the winning bidder, with a bid of PHP 3,241,344.43.
Piccio assumed office as municipal mayor on July 1, 2019, and approved full payment of the Additional Works on August 15, 2019. On August 19, 2019, he received a Letter from the DILG Provincial Office questioning the use of the variance. On September 24, 2019, the DILG asked him to revert the variance to the Bureau of Treasury on or before December 6, 2019.
The Issue
The Court framed the issue as whether the petitioner availed of the correct remedy in questioning the CA ruling on the administrative aspect, and whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in its assailed Decision and Resolution.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. It explained that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The issue raised was not about the CA's jurisdiction, so the petition was dismissed outrightly.
The Court's disposition reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 24, 2024, and the Resolution dated January 27, 2025 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 16066 are hereby AFFIRMED."
By the Numbers
- LGSF-AM amount: PHP 9,276,693.00
- Road Project winning bid: PHP 6,029,219.83
- Additional Works ABC: PHP 3,247,473.17
- Additional Works winning bid: PHP 3,241,344.43
- Notice of Authority received: April 18, 2018
- Road Project completed: March 22, 2019
- CA Decision: June 24, 2024; Resolution: January 27, 2025
- CA-G.R. SP No. 16066
The Court's Reasoning
The Court agreed with the CA that there was no sufficient evidence to reverse the Ombudsman's ruling exonerating respondents from administrative liability. It defined dishonesty as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray, or intent to violate the truth.
The Court found that respondents' alleged dishonesty was overturned by their claim of good faith, which was consistent with the documentary evidence. The issuance of the Individual Program of Works for the Additional Works was based on the belief that the variance could be used to fund it, and the statement that the fund source was the LGSF-AM was consistent with this belief, which appeared genuine.
On the charge under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713, the Court found no allegation nor evidence to support the alleged violation, and held that the Ombudsman correctly dismissed the complaint on that matter. The Court concluded the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. E-00224, penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.