G.R. No. 239827 - LEONILA PAREDES MONTERO, VS. THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND AUGUSTIN M. CLORIBEL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding probable cause to indict respondent for four counts of Unlawful Appointments, and four counts of Violation of Sect. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as amended, let the corresponding Informations be filed with the Sandiganbayan. The charges for Violation of Sec. 3(a) and (g) of R.A. 3019, as amended, and Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property is dismissed for lack of evidence. [30] Montero moved for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order. [31] Dissatisfied, Montero filed this Petition for Certiorari. [32] Petitioner argues that the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it grossly misappreciated the evidence and the law. She claims that the elements of unlawful appointments are lacking inasmuch as the idea to hire Hormachuelos et al. originated from the Sangguniang Bayan and that she was merely authorized to hire them. [33] Further, she avers that the appointments of Hormachuelos et al. are not covered by the one-year prohibition given that consultancy services are considered as nongovernment services under the civil service rules. [34] Citing Joson v. Ombudsman , [35] petitioner insists that there are several factors that support her claim that Hormachuelos et al. were not appointed to public office. These include the fact that their duties came from a job order and not a law and that they were not given a portion of the sovereign authority. She also claims that they do not receive benefits given to government employees and that service contracts are not considered as government service under the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointment and other Personnel Actions. [36] Petitioner likewise asserts that there is no probable cause to indict her with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, there being no undue injury to the government. She maintains that Hormachuelos et al. accomplished their tasks, entitling them to payment of honoraria. Even the element of manifest partiality is lacking since. she merely relied on the resolutions, issuances of the Civil Service Commission, and opinions of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. [37] Petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition, [38] reiterating her arguments. [39] Finally, she informed this Court of a Decision [40] rendered by the Court of Appeals involving the administrative charges against her. In this Decision, the Court of Appeals held that there was no substantial evidence to hold her liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Nonetheless, she was found guilty of simple misconduct. [41] In his Comment, [42] private respondent argues that this Court must not interfere with the finding of probable cause of the Office of the Ombudsman, unless it be proven that the latter acted with grave abuse of discretion. [43] Private respondent also refutes petitioner's assertion that the Sangguniang Bayan merely authorized her to hire Hormachuelos et al. as the resolutions were only issued after they began rendering their serv