Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40375:g-r-no-139396-august-15,-2000-efren-o-loquias,-et-al-v-office-of-the-ombudsman,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:38:26+00:00

Document:
EFREN O. LOQUIAS, ANTONIO V. DIN, JR., ANGELITO L. MARTINEZ II, LOVELYN J. BIADOR, GREGORIO FACIOL, JR., Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, and DR. JOSE PEPITO H. DALOGDOG, DR. AURORA BEATRIZ A. ROMANO, MA. TERESITA C. ABASTAR, JESSICA S. ALLAN, MA. TERESA ANIVERSARIO, Respondents.
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Resolution dated June 29, 1998 charging herein petitioners for violation of Section 3, paragraph e of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) which was issued by the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao and approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, and the Memorandum dated June 11, 1999 wherein Ombudsman Desierto disapproved the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor dismissing Criminal Case No. 24852.
Docketed as Case No. OMB-MIN-98-0022, herein public respondent Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto approved on September 4, 1999 the Resolution dated June 29, 1998 of Graft Investigation Officer II Jovito A. Coresis, Jr. of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao finding "probable cause to conclude that the crime of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 has been committed by respondents Mayor, Vice-Mayor, members of the Sangguniang Bayan and Budget Officer of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur" and that accordingly, the appropriate Information be filed with the Sandiganbayan. 1 The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 24852.
THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN WITH DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN APPROVING THE RESOLUTION CHARGING THE PETITIONERS FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 PAR. (E) OF R.A. 3019 ISSUED AND APPROVED BY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO.
In its Comment, 7 the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Solicitor General, alleges that the petition does not comply with Section 5, Rule 7 as the Verification and the Certification on Non-Forum Shopping were signed only by petitioner Antonio Din and not by all the petitioners and there is no showing that petitioner Din was authorized by his co-petitioners to represent them in this case; that the petition raise factual issues; and that the municipality had sufficient funds to grant the statutory salary increases and benefits.
In their Reply, 8 petitioners contend that there was substantial compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 notwithstanding the fact that only one of the petitioners signed the verification and certification on forum shopping; and that the petition does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented.
With respect to the joint affidavits of waiver allegedly executed by private complainants for the purpose of requesting the Special Prosecutor to move for the dismissal of the criminal case, 14 this Court ruled in Alba v. Nitorreda 15 that a joint affidavit of desistance is not binding on the Office of the Ombudsman and cannot prevail over the provision of law which categorically allows the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute on its own any act or omission of a public officer or employee, office or agency which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
1.	Annex, "A", pp. 25-34, Rollo.
2	Annex "C", pp. 39-47, Rollo.
3.	Annex "B", pp. 35-38, Rollo.
4.	Annex "D", pp. 48-56, Rollo.
5.	1st par., p. 3, Petition, p. 5, Rollo.
6.	1st par., p. 3, Petition, p. 5, Rollo.
9.	SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
10.	Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708.
11.	Ocampo v. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725; Alba v. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753; Knecht v. Desierto, 291 SCRA 292.
13.	225 SCRA 725, 730; see also Morong Water District v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, Et Al., G.R. No. 116754, March 17, 2000.
14.	4th par., pp. 12-13, Petition, pp. 14-15, Rollo.
15.	254 SCRA 753 (En Banc).

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.