ORCULLO
VS. GERVACIO
G.R. No. 134104. September 14, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Nenita R. Orcullo was elected City Councilor
of the Second District of Davao City in 1995.
She was chair of the Committee of Women Welfare and Development of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod.
In September, 1995, the City Government of Davao City,
represented by the Vice-Mayor, named respondent Virginia Yap Morales as team
leader of a study group in the conduct of the Action Study Towards Policy
Formulation on the Welfare and Development of Women, in aid of legislation.
In 1996, due to financial constraints, Orcullo caused the
suspension of the project. In 1997, Morales wrote the Office of the Ombudsman
for Mindanao "requesting for assistance" to collect back wages.
On March 20, 1997, petitioner having been furnished a
copy of the above letter, replied
thereto. She said that respondent
Virginia Yap Morales was among women activists who volunteered to work for the
codification of the Women Code, and she was endorsed to head the study
team. Acting thereon, on September 15,
1995, the Vice Mayor of Davao City, appointed respondent team leader of a study
group for an action study towards policy formulation on women's welfare and development,
in aid of proposed legislation. As there
was no budget for the project, petitioner recommended her appointment as
technical assistant in the City Council of Davao City. On October 24, 1995, respondent accepted the
appointment and signed a contract of service with the City of Davao, represented
by the Vice-Mayor, enforceable for the period October 1, 1995 to December 31,
1995, and upon expiration thereof, she was named as clerk II in the office of
petitioner. She received all salaries
due her even during the time the work was suspended for three months, until the
suspension of the project due to financial constraints.
In 1998, respondent Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy
Ombudsman for Mindanao issued an order directing Orcullo to pay respondent
Morales back wages.
Orcullo filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground
that the award of back wages was improper as there was no employer-employee
relationship between her and respondent Morales, and that the office of the
Ombudsman was without authority to issue such an order. Gervacio denied the
motion for reconsideration.
On April 15, 1998, graft investigator Marilou B. Unabia
issued a memorandum terminating the request for assistance of Morales and recommending
that a case for violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019 be filed against Orcullo
before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao. Gervacio, Jr. approved
the recommendation. Hence, Orcullo filed special civil action for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in ordering petitioner personally to pay back wages
to respondent Morales, who was named as team leader of a study group for a
project of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City, in aid of legislation.
Held:
No. The Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao has no authority or
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. As a money claim against
petitioner personally, the claim is within the jurisdiction of a court of
proper jurisdiction (depending on the amount of the claim). If the money claim is against the City
government of Davao City, the claim is within the jurisdiction of the City
Council (Sangguniang Panlungsod), or other proper government agency, but not
the office of the Ombudsman.
The respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao cannot
invoked Section 15 (5) of R.A. No. 6770, which provides:
“SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. – The Office of
the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
“x x x
“(5) Request any government agency for assistance and
information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine,
if necessary, pertinent records and documents;”
The above quoted provision does not vest the Ombudsman
with authority to order a public official to pay a money claim of an aggrieved
party. The provision authorizes the Office of the Ombudsman to request
any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge
of its responsibilities. It does not authorize the Ombudsman to directly order
the payment of claims for wages, salaries or compensations of aggrieved parties.
What is more, respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
abused the functions of his office by approving a recommendation of a graft
investigator to file with his own office an anti-graft case against petitioner
for violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019, who was just exercising the
duties of her office as an elected local legislator of the City of Davao. Petitioner could not be personally liable
for the payment of the wages, salary or
honorarium of a "team leader" assisting her as local
legislator of Davao City in crafting a piece of legislation on women's
code. She was not even the one who
hired respondent to undertake the project.
Petitioner's refusal to pay was not in bad faith, much less evident bad
faith. Hence, she could not be liable
for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
"Any further prosecution then of petitioner was pure
harassment."
Consequently, the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in
issuing the questioned orders. Although
petitioner could have elevated the ruling of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
to the Ombudsman in Manila, the threat of prosecution of petitioner
before the Deputy Ombudsman’s own office created an immediate urgency for
judicial relief.
Petition granted. Orders of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Mindanao annulled. Graft Investigation Officer Unabia enjoined to desist from
further acting on the case.
0
Comments
