G.R. No. 146376 . April 23, 2014.
RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ACTING THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, MARYDEL B. JARLOS-MARTIN, EMMANUEL M. LAUREZO and ILUMINADO L. JUNIA, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo M. Agdeppa, a resident auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA) at the National Housing Authority (NHA), filed an administrative complaint (OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470) against respondents Marydel B. Jarlos-Martin, Emmanuel M. Laurezo, and Iluminado L. Junia, Jr. before the Office of the Ombudsman. This complaint arose from an earlier administrative complaint (OMB-0-99-1015) filed by Junia, then an NHA Group Manager, against Agdeppa and another COA auditor, Ricardo Castillo. Junia alleged that Agdeppa and Castillo facilitated overpayments to a contractor for an NHA project through dubious audit reports. Notably, Junia’s complaint in OMB-0-99-1015 was signed and verified but not under oath. Jarlos-Martin, a Graft Investigation Officer, issued an order directing Agdeppa and Castillo to file counter-affidavits, which they did. Agdeppa also wrote letters to Senator Renato Cayetano and Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, alleging irregularities by COA and CSC officials and complaining of harassment, including the hasty processing of Junia’s complaint. Upon realizing Junia’s complaint was unsworn, Jarlos-Martin issued an order for Junia to swear to his complaint before Laurezo, which Junia did. Jarlos-Martin then issued a new order directing Agdeppa and Castillo to file fresh counter-affidavits to the now-sworn complaint. Agdeppa opposed this, arguing the records were already complete and the new order violated procedural rules. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed Agdeppa’s administrative complaint against the respondents. Agdeppa filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Agdeppa’s administrative complaint against respondents Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and Junia, Jr.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the acts of respondents Jarlos-Martin and Laurezo in requiring Junia to swear to his complaint and in directing the filing of new counter-affidavits were in accordance with the Ombudsman’s procedural rules and its investigatory powers. The Ombudsman has the authority to administer oaths and delegate such power, which Laurezo exercised. The directive for new counter-affidavits was a procedural step to ensure a sworn complaint was properly answered, and did not constitute harassment or violation of due process. The Ombudsman’s dismissal of Agdeppa’s complaint was an exercise of its discretion in evaluating administrative charges, and absent a clear showing of grave abuse, the Court will not interfere. The petition was denied for lack of merit.