EN BANC

[G.R. No. 174567. March 12, 2009.]

SEVERINO B. VERGARA , petitioner, vs . THE HON. OMBUDSMAN,

SEVERINO J. LAJARA, and VIRGINIA G. BARORO , respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO , J : p

The Case
This petition for certiorari a n d mandamus 1 assails the 17 March 2004
Resolution 2 and 22 August 2005 Order 3 of the Of ce of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon (Ombudsman) in OMB-L-C-02-1205-L. The Ombudsman dismissed the case led
by Severino B. Vergara (petitioner) and Edgardo H. Catindig against Severino J. Lajara
as Calamba City Mayor (Mayor Lajara), Virginia G. Baroro (Baroro) as City Treasurer,
Razul Requesto as President of Pamana, Inc. (Pamana), and Lauro Jocson as Vice
President and Trust Of cer of the Prudential Bank and Trust Company (Prudential
Bank) for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA
3019). 4
The Facts
On 25 June 2001, the City Council of Calamba (City Council), where petitioner
was a member, issued Resolution No. 115, Series of 2001. The resolution authorized
Mayor Lajara to negotiate with landowners within the vicinity of Barangays Real, Halang,
and Uno, for a new city hall site. 5 During the public hearing on 3 October 2001, the
choice for the new city hall site was limited to properties owned by Pamana and a lot in
Barangay Saimsin, Calamba. 6
On 29 October 2001, the City Council passed Resolution No. 280, Series of 2001,
authorizing Mayor Lajara to purchase several lots owned by Pamana with a total area of
55,190 square meters for the price of P129,017,600. 7 Mayor Lajara was also
authorized to execute, sign and deliver the required documents. 8 ITAaCc

On 13 November 2001, the City Government of Calamba (Calamba City), through

Mayor Lajara, entered into the following agreements:
1. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
The MOA with Pamana and Prudential Bank discussed the terms and
conditions of the sale of 15 lots with a total area of 55,190 square
meters. The total purchase price of P129,017,600 would be payable
in installment as follows: P10,000,000 on or before 15 November
2001, P19,017,600 on or before 31 January 2002, and the balance of
P100,000,000 in four equal installments payable on or before 31 April
2002, 31 July 2002, 31 October 2002, and 31 January 2003. 9
2. Deed of Sale

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Under the Deed of Sale, Calamba City purchased from Pamana and
Prudential Bank 15 lots with a total area of 55,190 square meters,
more or less, located in Brgy. Lecheria/Real, Calamba, Laguna with
Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) Numbers 159893, 159894, 159895,
159896, 159897, 158598, 162412, 162413, 204488, 66140, 61703,
66141, 66142, 66143, and 61705.
3. Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
Calamba City mortgaged to Pamana and Prudential Bank the same
properties subject of the Deed of Sale as security for the balance of
the purchase price.
4. Deed of Assignment of Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA)
Calamba City's IRAs from January 2002 to 31 January 2003 were
assigned to Pamana and Prudential Bank in the amount of
P119,017,600.
On 19 November 2001, the above documents were endorsed to the City Council.
Petitioner alleged that all these documents were not rati ed by the City Council, a fact
duly noted in an Audit Observation Memorandum dated 9 August 2002 and issued by
State Auditor Ruben C. Pagaspas of the Commission on Audit. ITAaHc

Petitioner stated that he called the attention of the City Council on the following
observations:
a) TCT Nos. 66141, 66142, 66143, 61705 and 66140 were registered
under the name of Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company
(PSEDC) and neither Pamana nor Prudential Bank owned these
properties. Petitioner pointed out that although PSEDC had executed
a Deed of Assignment 1 0 in favor of Pamana to maintain the road lots
within the PSEDC properties, PSEDC did not convey, sell or transfer
these properties to Pamana. Moreover, petitioner claimed that the
signature of Fr. Efren O. Rivera (Fr. Rivera) in Annex A of the Deed of
Assignment appeared to be a forgery. Fr. Rivera had also submitted
an Affidavit refuting his purported signature in Annex A. 1 1
b) Petitioner claimed that there was no relocation survey prior to the
execution of the Deed of Sale. 1 2
c) Petitioner alleged that with respect to the two lots covered by TCT
No. 61703 with an area of 5,976 square meters and TCT No. 66140
with an area of 3,747 square meters, Fr. Boyd R. Sulpico (Fr. Sulpico)
of the Dominican Province of the Philippines had earlier offered the
same for only P300 per square meter. 1 3
d) Petitioner contended that TCT Nos. 66141, 66142, 66143 and 61705
are road lots. The dorsal sides of the TCTs bear the common
annotation that the road lots cannot be closed or disposed without
the prior approval of the National Housing Authority and the
conformity of the duly organized homeowners' association. 1 4 aCTHDA

e) Petitioner claimed that an existing barangay road and an access road

to Bacnotan Steel Corporation and Danlex Corporation were included
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 in the Deed of Sale. 1 5
Petitioner maintained that since the pieces of evidence in support of the
complaint were documentary, respondents have admitted them impliedly. 1 6
The Ruling of the Ombudsman
On 17 March 2004, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution (Resolution) nding no
probable cause to hold any of the respondents liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA
3019. 1 7 CSDAIa

The Ombudsman found that the subject properties have been transferred and are
now registered in the name of Calamba City under new Certi cates of Title. 1 8
Moreover, the reasonableness of the purchase price for the subject lots could be
deduced from the fact that Calamba City bought them at P3,800 per square meter, an
amount lower than their zonal valuation at P6,000 per square meter. The Ombudsman
added that it was common knowledge that the fair market value of the lots was higher
than their zonal valuation, yet the lots were acquired at a lower price. The Ombudsman
also found that the terms and conditions of payment were neither onerous nor
burdensome to the city government as it was able to immediately take possession of
the lots even if it had paid only less than ten percent of the contract price and was even
relieved from paying interests on the installment payments. The Ombudsman ruled that
there was no compelling evidence showing actual injury or damage to the city
government to warrant the indictment of respondents for violation of Section 3 (e) of
RA 3019. 1 9
On 27 September 2004, petitioner led a Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner
questioned the lack of rati cation by the City Council of the contracts, the overpricing
of lots covered by TCT Nos. 61703 and 66140 in the amount of P19,812,546, the
inclusion of road lots and creek lots with a total value of P35,000,000, and the lack of a
relocation survey. 2 0
In an Order dated 22 August 2005 (Order), the Ombudsman denied the Motion
for Reconsideration for lack of merit. 2 1 The Ombudsman held that the various actions
performed by Mayor Lajara in connection with the purchase of the lots were all
authorized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod as manifested in the numerous resolutions.
With such authority, it could not be said that there was evident bad faith in purchasing
the lands in question. The lack of rati cation alone did not characterize the purchase of
the properties as one that gave unwarranted bene ts to Pamana or Prudential Bank or
one that caused undue injury to Calamba City. 2 2 CacTSI

On the alleged overpricing of the lots covered by TCT Nos. 61703 and 66140, the
Ombudsman ruled that it could be discerned from Fr. Sulpico's af davit that the said
parcels of land were excluded from the offer, being creek easement lots. 2 3
On the lots covered by TCT Nos. 66141, 66142, and 66143, the Ombudsman
resolved that new titles were issued in the name of Pamana with PSEDC as the former
registered owner. 2 4
The Ombudsman nally declared that the absence of a relocation survey did not
affect the validity of the subject transactions. 2 5
Petitioner contended that the assailed Ombudsman's Resolution and Order
discussed only the alleged reasonableness of the price of the property. The
Ombudsman did not consider the issue that Calamba City paid for lots that were either
easement/creeks, road lots or access roads. Petitioner alleged that it is erroneous to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 conclude that the price was reasonable because Calamba City should not have paid for
the creeks, road lots and access roads at the same price per square meter. Petitioner
claimed that the additional evidence of overpricing was a letter from Fr. Sulpico who
offered the road lots covered by TCT Nos. 61703 and 66140 at P300 2 6 per square
meter. 2 7
In their Comment, Mayor Lajara and Baroro (respondents) argued that as
frequently ruled by this Court, it is not sound practice to depart from the policy of non-
interference in the Ombudman's exercise of discretion to determine whether to le an
information against an accused. In the assailed Resolution and Order, the Ombudsman
stated clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the case was based and as
such, petitioner had the burden of proving that grave abuse of discretion attended the
issuance of the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman. Respondents maintained that
in a meager three pages of argumentation, petitioner failed to point out the grave errors
in the assailed Resolution and merely raised issues which have been disposed of by the
Ombudsman. 2 8 HCTaAS

Respondents claimed that out of the six PSEDC-owned lots that were sold to
Calamba City, the ownership of the four lots had already been transferred to Pamana as
evidenced by the new TCTs. Respondents added that even if TCT Nos. 66140 and
61703 were still in PSEDC's name, ownership of these lots had been transferred to
Pamana as con rmed by Fr. Sulpico, the custodian of all the assets of the Dominican
Province of the Philippines. 2 9 Respondents also refuted the alleged overpricing of the
lots covered by TCT Nos. 66140 and 61703. Respondents contended that Fr. Sulpico's
letter offering the lots at P350 3 0 per square meter had been superseded by his own
denial of said offer during the meeting of the Sangguniang Panlungsod on 14
November 2002. 3 1

On the absence of rati cation by the City Council of the MOA, Deed of Sale, Deed
of Mortgage, and Deed of Assignment, respondents explained that Section 22 3 2 of
Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160) spoke of prior authority and not rati cation.
Respondents pointed out that petitioner did not deny the fact that Mayor Lajara was
given prior authority to negotiate and sign the subject contracts. In fact, it was
petitioner who made the motion to enact Resolution No. 280. 3 3
On the non-conduct of a relocation survey, respondents noted that while a
relocation survey may be of use in determining which lands should be purchased, the
absence of a relocation survey would not, in any manner, affect the validity of the
subject transactions. 3 4
The Ombudsman, as represented by the Of ce of the Solicitor General, claimed
that there was no grave abuse of discretion committed in dismissing the complaint-
af davit for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. 3 5 The Ombudsman reasoned that to
warrant conviction under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the following essential elements
must concur: (a) the accused is a public of cer discharging administrative, judicial, or
of cial functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to any party, including
the government, or gave any private party unwarranted bene ts, advantage, or
preference in the discharge of his functions. 3 6 The Ombudsman contended that when
Mayor Lajara entered into and implemented the subject contracts, he complied with the
resolutions issued by the City Council. aDIHCT

The Ombudsman cites the following circumstances to show that the action
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 taken by Mayor Lajara neither caused any undue injury to Calamba City nor gave a
private party any unwarranted bene ts, advantage, or preference. First, the purchase
price of P3,800 per square meter or a total of P129,017,600 for the site of the new City
Hall was reasonable. The initial offer of the seller for the property was P6,000 per
square meter, an amount equal to the zonal value. Second, Calamba City took
immediate possession of the properties despite an initial payment of only P10,000,000
out of the total purchase price. Third, the total purchase price was paid under liberal
terms as it was paid in installments for one year from date of purchase. Fourth, the
parties agreed that the last installment of P25,000,000 was subject to the condition
that titles to the properties were first transferred to Calamba City. 3 7
In its Memorandum, the Ombudsman asserted that petitioner had not
substantiated his claim by clear and convincing evidence that TCT Nos. 66141, 66142,
and 66143 are road lots. The sketch plan presented by petitioner could not be regarded
as conclusive evidence to support his claim. The Ombudsman also refuted petitioner's
claim that TCT Nos. 68601 and 68603 were included in the Deed of Sale. 3 8
The Ombudsman maintained that petitioner's contention that the prices for TCT
Nos. 66140 and 61703 were jacked up was belied by the af davit of Fr. Sulpico stating
that the said lots were excluded from the offer as they were creek/easement lots. 3 9
The Ombudsman explained that rati cation by the City Council was not a
condition sine qua non for the local chief executive to enter into contracts on behalf of
the city. The law requires prior authorization from the City Council and in this case,
Resolution Nos. 115 and 280 were the City Council's stamp of approval and authority
for Mayor Lajara to purchase the subject lots. 4 0
The Ombudsman added that mandamus is not meant to control or review the
exercise of judgment or discretion. To compel the Ombudsman to pursue a criminal
case against respondents is outside the ambit of the courts. 4 1
Aggrieved by the Ombudman's Resolution and Order, petitioner elevated the case
before this Court. ESTDcC

Hence, this petition.

The Issues
The issues in this petition are:
1. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the Ombudsman
dismissed for lack of probable cause the case against respondents
for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019;
2. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the Ombudsman
failed to consider the issue that Calamba City had acquired road lots
which should not have been paid at the same price as the other lots;
and
3. Whether all the documents pertaining to the purchase of the lots
should bear the ratification by the City Council of Calamba.
The Ruling of the Court
On the determination of probable cause by the Ombudsman and the grave abuse of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 discretion in the acquisition of road lots
The mandate of the Of ce of the Ombudsman is expressed in Section 12, Article
XI of the Constitution which states:
Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall
act promptly on complaints led in any form or manner against public of cials or
employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result
thereof.

Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution vests in the Of ce of the Ombudsman

the following powers, functions, and duties:
Sec. 13. The Of ce of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public of cial, employee, of ce or agency, when such
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public of cial or
employee of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with
original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to
stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
SaHIEA

(3) Direct the of cer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
of cial or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion,
fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the of cer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents
relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his of ce involving the
disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to
the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.
(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.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so
warrant and with due prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inef ciency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud,
and corruption in the government, and make recommendations for their
elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or
perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. (Boldfacing
supplied)

Republic Act No. 6770 (RA 6770), or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, granted the
Of ce of the Ombudsman full administrative authority. Section 13 of RA 6770 restates
the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Sec. 13. Mandate. — The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the
people, shall act promptly on complaints led in any form or manner against
of cers or employees of the government, or of any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the
evidence warrants in order to promote ef cient service by the Government to the
people.

Section 15 (1) of RA 6770 substantially reiterates the investigatory powers of the

Office of the Ombudsman: cACEHI

Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Of ce of the Ombudsman

shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public of cer or employee, of ce or agency, when such act
or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inef cient. It has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of
his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
agency of government, the investigation of such cases;

Jurisprudence explains that the Of ce of the Ombudsman is vested with the sole
power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or on complaint of any person, any
act or omission of any public of cer or employee, of ce, or agency when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inef cient. 4 2 The Ombudsman's
power to investigate and to prosecute is plenary and unqualified. 4 3
The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given
its attendant facts and circumstances, should be led or not. The Ombudsman may
dismiss the complaint should the Ombudsman find the complaint insufficient in form or
substance, or the Ombudsman may proceed with the investigation if, in the
Ombudsman's view, the complaint is in due form and substance. 4 4 Hence, the ling or
non- ling of the information is primarily lodged within the "full discretion" of the
Ombudsman. 4 5
This Court has consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise
of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers. The Ombudsman, which is
"beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the
integrity of the public service". 4 6 However, this Court is not precluded from reviewing
the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion, in which case the
certiorari jurisdiction of the Court may be exceptionally invoked pursuant to Section 1,
Article VIII of the Constitution. 4 7 We have enumerated instances where the courts may
interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory powers:

(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

(b) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions;
(c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
(d) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 (f) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

(h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;

(i) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance. 4 8 HAcaCS

These exceptions are not present in this case. However, petitioner argues that
the assailed Resolution of the Ombudsman dwelt only on the alleged reasonableness of
the price of the property. Petitioner claims that the Resolution did not pass upon the
more serious issue that Calamba City had paid for several lots that the City should not
have paid for because they were road lots.
The Ombudsman, in issuing the assailed Resolution, found no probable cause to
hold any of the respondents liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. The
Ombudsman found that the subject lots were bought at P3,800 per square meter, an
amount lower than their zonal valuation of P6,000 per square meter.
Based on this computation, Calamba City paid for a total area of 33,952 square
meters 4 9 instead of the original 55,000 square meters as authorized in the City
Council's Resolution No. 280, Series of 2001. Contrary to petitioner's allegation that Lot
5 with an area of 3,062 square meters and Lot 8 with an area of 3,327 square meters
are easement/creeks and road lot respectively, 5 0 the sketch plan 5 1 submitted by
petitioner as Annex L in his Af davit-Complaint and the TCTs 5 2 of the properties
indicate that these are parcels of land.
A perusal of the records shows that the ndings of fact by the Ombudsman are
supported by substantial evidence. As long as substantial evidence supports it, the
Ombudsman's ruling will not be overturned. 5 3 Petitioner, in arguing that the
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, raises questions of fact. This Court
is not a trier of facts, more so in the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither
questions of fact nor even of law are entertained, but only questions of lack of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion can be raised. 5 4 The rationale behind this rule
is explained in this wise: CHcESa

The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory
powers granted by the Constitution to the Of ce of the Ombudsman but upon
practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously
hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory
proceedings conducted by the Of ce of the Ombudsman with regard to
complaints led before it, in much the same way that the courts would be
extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion
on the part of the scals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to le an
information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. 5 5

In this case, the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of

probable cause based on the Ombudsman's appreciation and review of the evidence
presented. In dismissing the complaint, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse
of discretion.
Probable cause is de ned as the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge
of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted. 5 6 Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 guilt, or on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and de nitely not on
evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, but it certainly demands more than
bare suspicion and can never be left to presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing
logic. 5 7
In Rubio v. Ombudsman, 5 8 this Court held that what is contextually punishable
under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 is the act of causing any undue injury to any party, or the
giving to any private party unwarranted bene ts, advantage or preference in the
discharge of the public of cer's functions. In this case, after evaluating the evidence
presented, 5 9 the Ombudsman categorically ruled that there was no evidence to show
actual injury or damage to the city government to warrant the indictment of
respondents for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. Further, this Court held in Pecho
v. Sandiganbayan , 6 0 that "causing undue injury to any party, including the government,
could only mean actual injury or damage which must be established by evidence". Here,
the Ombudsman found that petitioner had not substantiated his claim against
respondents for the crime charged. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the
evaluation of the evidence presented before the Ombudsman.
We reiterate the rule that courts do not interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of
discretion in determining probable cause unless there are compelling reasons. The
Ombudsman's nding of probable cause, or lack of it, is entitled to great respect
absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Besides, to justify the issuance of the
writ of certiorari on the ground of abuse of discretion, the abuse must be grave, as
when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and it must be so patent as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation
of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. 6 1ScaAET

On the ratification by the City Council of all documents pertaining to the purchase of the
lots
Petitioner contends that all the documents, like the Memorandum of Agreement,
Deed of Sale, Deed of Mortgage, and Deed of Assignment, do not bear the rati cation
by the City Council.
In the assailed Order, the Ombudsman held that the various actions performed
by Mayor Lajara in connection with the purchase of the lots were all authorized by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod as manifested in numerous resolutions. The lack of
rati cation alone does not characterize the purchase of the properties as one that gave
unwarranted benefits.
In its Memorandum submitted before this Court, the Ombudsman, through the
Of ce of the Solicitor General, pointed out that the rati cation by the City Council is not
a condition sine qua non for the local chief executive to enter into contracts on behalf of
the city. The law requires prior authorization from the City Council and in this case,
Resolution No. 280 is the City Council's stamp of approval and authority for Mayor
Lajara to purchase the subject lots.
Section 22 (c), Title I of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991, provides:
Section 22. Corporate Powers. — . . .
(c) Unless otherwise provided in this Code, no contract may be
entered into by the local chief executive in behalf of the local
government unit without prior authorization by the sanggunian
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 concerned. A legible copy of such contract shall be posted at a conspicuous
place in the provincial capitol or the city, municipal or barangay hall. (Boldfacing
and underscoring supplied)

Section 455, Title III of RA 7160 enumerates the powers, duties, and
compensation of the Chief Executive. Specifically, it states that:
Section 455. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties and Compensation. — . . .
(b) For ef cient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which
is the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this
Code, the city mayor shall: ScHAIT

xxx xxx xxx

(vi) Represent the city in all its business transactions and sign
in its behalf all bonds, contracts, and obligations, and such other
d ocu m en ts upon authority of the sangguniang panlungsod or
pursuant to law or ordinance; (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

Clearly, when the local chief executive enters into contracts, the law speaks of
prior authorization or authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod and not rati cation.
It cannot be denied that the City Council issued Resolution No. 280 authorizing Mayor
Lajara to purchase the subject lots.
Resolution No. 280 states:
RESOLUTION NO. 280
Series of 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR OF CALAMBA, HON. SEVERINO

J. LAJARA TO PURCHASE LOTS OF PAMANA INC. WITH A TOTAL AREA OF
FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE METERS (55,000 SQ. M.) SITUATED AT
BARANGAY REAL, CITY OF CALAMBA FOR A LUMP SUM PRICE OF ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY NINE MILLION SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
PESOS (P129,017,600), SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS, AND FOR
THIS PURPOSE, FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE HON. MAYOR SEVERINO J.
LAJARA TO REPRESENT THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND TO EXECUTE, SIGN AND
DELIVER SUCH DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE SO REQUIRED IN THE
PREMISES.
WHEREAS, the City of Calamba is in need of constructing a modern City Hall to
adequately meet the requirements of governing new city and providing all
adequate facilities and amenities to the general public that will transact business
with the city government.

WHEREAS, as the City of Calamba has at present no available real property of its
own that can serve as an appropriate site of said modern City Hall and must
therefore purchase such property from the private sector under terms and
conditions that are most bene cial and advantageous to the people of the City of
Calamba; DHcTaE

NOW THEREFORE, on motion of Kagawad S. VERGARA duly seconded by

Kagawad R. HERNANDEZ, be it resolved as it is hereby resolved to authorize the
City Mayor of Calamba, Hon. Severino J. Lajara to purchase lots of Pamana, Inc.
with a total area of fty ve thousand square meters (55,000 sq.m.) situated at
Barangay Real, City of Calamba for a lump sum price of One Hundred Twenty
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Nine Million Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P129,017,600) subject to
the availability of funds, and for this purpose, further authorizing the Hon.
Mayor Severino J. Lajara to represent the City Government and to
execute, sign and deliver such documents and papers as may be so
required in the premises. 6 2 (Emphasis supplied)

As aptly pointed out by the Ombudsman, rati cation by the City Council is not a
condition sine qua non for Mayor Lajara to enter into contracts. With the resolution
issued by the Sangguniang Panlungsod, it cannot be said that there was evident bad
faith in purchasing the subject lots. The lack of rati cation alone does not characterize
the purchase of the properties as one that gave unwarranted bene ts to Pamana or
Prudential Bank or one that caused undue injury to Calamba City.
In sum, this Court has maintained its policy of non-interference with the
Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers in the absence of
grave abuse of discretion, not only out of respect for these constitutionally mandated
powers but also upon considerations of practicality owing to the myriad functions of
the courts. 6 3 Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, we uphold the
findings of the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Resolution and Order of
the Ombudsman in OMB-L-C-02-1205-L dated 17 March 2004 and 22 August 2005,
respectively.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Acting C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-
Morales, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro, Brion and
Peralta, JJ., concur.
Puno, C.J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

1. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

2. Rollo, pp. 113-132. Penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer II Eriberto E. Cruz
III, concurred in by Director Joaquin F. Salazar. Hon. Victor C. Fernandez, Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon, gave his recommending approval and Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo,
Tanodbayan (Ombudsman), approved the recommendation.

3. Id. at 146-155. Penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer II Joy N. Casihan-
Dumlao, concurred in by Director Joaquin F. Salazar. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
Victor C. Fernandez gave his recommending approval and Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas
N. Gutierrez approved the recommendation.

4. Id. at 21-22, 31. cCaEDA

5. Id. at 5.
6. Id. at 22.
7. Id. at 5.
8. Id. at 22.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 9. Id. at 36-39.
10. The Deed of Assignment, issued in favor of Pamana, was signed on 21 November 1986
by Rev. Fr. Efren Rivera as Chairman of the PSEDC's Board. A copy of the Deed of
Assignment was faxed to the City Government last 3 December 2001.
11. Rollo, pp. 301-303.
12. Id. at 303.
13. Id. at 79, 303-304.
14. Id. at 304.
15. Id. at 305.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 128. The Resolution was approved by Ombudsman Marcelo on 12 August 2004.
18. Id. at 129.
19. Id. at 129-130.
20. Id. at 139-144.
21. Id. at 146-155. The Order was approved by Ombudsman Gutierrez on 25 August 2006.
IDATCE

22. Id. at 151-152.

23. Id. at 152.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 152-153.
26. Id. at 79. In a letter dated 20 September 2002 and addressed to petitioner as City
Councilor, Fr. Sulpico offered the lots at P300 per square meter.

27. Id. at 307-310.

28. Id. at 172-176.
29. Id. at 331-332.
30. Id. at 197. In a letter dated 5 November 2002 addressed to Mayor Lajara as City Mayor,
Fr. Sulpico offered the lots at P350 per square meter.

31. Id. at 177-178, 189-194.

32. Sec. 22(c). Unless otherwise provided in this Code, no contract may be entered into by
the local chief executive in behalf of the local government unit without prior
authorization by the sanggunian concerned.

33. Rollo, pp. 178-179.

34. Id. at 342-343. IEAaST

35. Id. at 369.

36. Id. at 370-371.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 37. Id. at 372-373.
38. Id. at 373-374.
39. Id. at 375.
40. Id. at 376.
41. Id. at 378, 380.
42. Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038, 4 December 2007, 539 SCRA
415, 423.

43. Schroeder v. Saldevar, G.R. No. 163656, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 624, 630.
44. Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, G.R. No. 139296, 23
November 2007, 538 SCRA 207, 215-216.
45. Republic v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135123, 22 January 2007, 512 SCRA 57, 63.
46. Quiambao v. Hon. Desierto, 481 Phil. 852, 867 (2004).
47. Crucillo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 159876, 26 June 2007, 525 SCRA 636,
653.

48. Redulla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 167973, 28 February 2007, 517 SCRA 110, 118-119.
ACcISa

49. Rollo, pp. 43-57. The subject lots covered by the purchase were as follows:
1. TCT No. 159893 — 3,441 sq.m.
2. TCT No. 159894 — 2,084 sq.m.
3. TCT No. 159895 — 3,062 sq.m.
4. TCT No. 159896 — 2,057 sq.m.
5. TCT No. 159897 — 3,327 sq.m.
6. TCT No. 158598 — 5,797 sq.m.
7. TCT No. 162412 — 2,321 sq.m.
8. TCT No. 162413 — 1,363 sq.m.
9. TCT No. 204488 — 10,500 sq.m.
Total area = 33,952 sq.m.

50. Id. at 307.

51. Id. at 81 and 158.
52. Id. at 45 and 47.
53. Republic v. Desierto, supra note 45 at 68.
54. Cruz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 110436, 27 June 1994, 233 SCRA 439, 459.
55. Republic v. Desierto, supra note 45 at 68.
56. De Chavez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 168830-31, 6 February 2007, 514
SCRA 638, 653.

57. R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, 5 March 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 398.
58. Rubio v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 171609, 17 August 2007, 530 SCRA 649, 656. ECDAcS

59. The Ombudsman found out that the subject properties have been transferred and are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 now registered in the name of Calamba City under new Certificates of Title. The
reasonableness of the purchase price for the subject lots could be deduced from the fact
that Calamba City bought them at P3,800 per square meter, an amount lower than its
zonal valuation pegged at P6,000 per square meter. The Ombudsman added that it is
common knowledge that the fair market value of the lots is higher than its zonal
valuation, yet the lots were acquired only at a lower price. The Ombudsman also
ascertained that the terms and conditions of payment were neither onerous nor
burdensome to the city government as it was able to immediately take possession of the
lots even if it had paid only less than ten percent of the contract price and was even
relieved from paying interests on the installment payments.
60. G.R. No. 111399, 14 November 1994, 238 SCRA 116, 133.

61. San Miguel Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, 394 Phil. 608, 636-637 (2000).
62. Rollo, p. 95.
63. Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra note 42.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com