Agdepa v Ombudsman Case 7

RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA, v. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ACTING THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR  THE TH E MI MILI LITA TARY RY,, MA MARY RYDE DEL L B. JA JARL RLOS OS-M -MA ART RTIN IN,, EM EMMA MANU NUEL EL M. LAUREZO AND ILUMINADO L. JUNIA, JR. .G.R. No. 146376, A!"# $3, $%14 FACTS&

Junia, then Group Manager for the Project Technical Services Group of  the National Housing Authority (NHA, file! a "o#plaint $efore the %ffice of  the %#$u!s#an against several NHA officials, together &ith Ag!eppa an! "astillo, resi!ent au!itors of the "o##ission on Au!it ("%A at the NHA. Junia' Jun ia's s "o# "o#pla plaint int &as !oc !ocet ete! e! as OMB-%-''-1%1(. Ju Juni nia a al alle lege ge! ! th that at Supra Sup ra "on "onstr struct uction ion (Su (Supra pra"on "on, , the con contr tract actor or for the NHA pro projec jectt &a &as s over ov erpai pai! ! in th the e to tota tall a# a#ou ount nt of P) P),* ,*++ ++,+ ,+. .- -.. Th The e ov over erpa pay#e y#ent nt &a &as s alle al lege ge!ly !ly fa faci cili lita tate te! ! th thro roug ugh h th the e !u !u$i $iou ous s an an! ! co conf nfusi using ng au au!i !itt re repo port rts s prepare! $y Ag!eppa an! en!orse! $y "astillo, to the !etri#ent, !a#age, an! preju!ice of the Govern#ent. Ag!eppa file! his Ans&er on July )/, 000, !enying Junia's allegations against hi# an! praying for the !is#issal of the "o#plaint in %M12*2002 *3 for utter lac of #erit. Jarlos2Martin issue! a 4esolution in %M12*2002*3 fin!ing pro$a$le cause to in!ict Ag!ep Ag!epa a an! "astillo for violation violation of section section 5(e of the Anti2Gra Anti2Graft ft an! "orrupt Practices Act relative to the overpay#ent of the a#ount of  P),3+5.+5 P),3+ 5.+5 to S6P4A "onstruction "onstruction an! or!e or!ers rs that an infor#ation infor#ation $e file! against the # in the proper court. Mean&hile, as his Motion to 4esolve in %M12*2002*3 &as still unacte! upon up on,, Ag Ag!e !epp ppa a fi file le! ! $e $efo fore re th the e %f %ffi fice ce of th the e %# %#$u $u!s !s#a #an n an Af Affi fi!av !avit it22 "o#plaint against Jarlos2Martin, 7aure8o, an! Junia, !ocete! as OMB-MILAg!ep eppa pa ac accu cuse se! ! Ja Jarl rlos os2M 2Mar arti tin, n, 7a 7aur ure8 e8o, o, an an! ! Ju Juni nia a of  CRIM-%%-%47%. Ag! violating Section 5(a, (e, (f, an! (j of 4epu$lic Act No. 5*09 an! 4ule ::, Section +(a, ($, an! (g of Supre#e "ourt A!#inistrative %r!er No. *-, !ate! April *, 00*, other&ise no&n as the 4ules of Proce!ure of the %ffice of the %#$u!s#an.

ISSUE& ;he ;hethe therr res respon pon!en !entt Jar Jarlos los2Ma 2Marti rtin n cau cause! se! !a# !a#age age an! inj injury ury to Ag!eppa $ecause she set asi!e the recor!s of %M12*2002*3, &hich &as alrea!y co#plete &hen she issue! her %r!er !ate! / %cto$er 000.

HELD&

To &arrant the in!ict#ent of the respon!ents for violation of Section 5(e of 4A 5*0, it is not enough that the act of the respon!ents in the !ischarge of their official function cause! un!ue injury to Ag!eppa. :t $ehooves Ag!eppa to prove that the assaile! act #ust have $een !one &ith #anifest partiality, evi!ent $a! faith, or gross ine