FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 241576 & 241623. November 3, 2020.]

CECILIA Q. REJAS, * petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT and DIOSDADO N. DITONA, represented by
EDWIN N. DITONA, respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the: (1) Decision 2 dated February
15, 2018 of the Special Twenty-Third Division of the Court of Appeals (CA),
Mindanao Station in the consolidated cases of CA-G.R. SP No. 07765-MIN and
CA-G.R. SP No. 07826-MIN; and (2) Resolution 3 dated July 6, 2018 denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The assailed Decision and Resolution affirmed with modification the
Decision 4 dated September 7, 2016 of the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) and its Order 5 dated October 28, 2016 denying petitioner's
motion for reconsideration, relative to OMB-M-A-12-0201 entitled "Diosdado
N. Ditona vs. Rogelio N. Quiño, et al." where petitioner was found
administratively liable for grave misconduct and was meted the penalty of
dismissal from service.
FACTS
In his Affidavit Complaint 6 dated June 13, 2012 filed before the
Ombudsman, Diosdado Ditona (Ditona) alleged that Rogelio N. Quiño 7
(Rogelio), the former Municipal Mayor of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, approved
several appointments of his brother, Antonio N. Quiño, Jr. (Antonio), as
Mechanical Shop Foreman. Ditona alleged that these appointments violated
the rule on nepotism. He further averred that petitioner, Rogelio's and
Antonio's sister, certified the appointments in her capacity as the former
Municipal Budget Officer of the Municipality of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon. 8
The siblings purportedly conspired to make it appear that the position of
Mechanical Shop Foreman is of a higher salary grade (SG 15) when in truth,
t h e Sangguniang Bayan of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, through Ordinance
Nos. 2000-151 9 and 2001-157, 10 fixed a lower salary grade of 11 to the
position. Consequently, Antonio received a salary higher than what was
provided by law, to the damage and prejudice of the government. 11 Ditona
finally alleged that Antonio falsified his personal data sheet (PDS) by making
it appear that he was not related to the appointing or recommending
authority. 12 CAIHTE

In their Joint Counter-Affidavit, 13 the siblings denied that there was an

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 intention to hide their relationship with Antonio, and that on the contrary, the
fact was disclosed right from the beginning. 14 The position of Mechanical
Shop Foreman was likewise contractual and of non-career service, and was
thusly excluded from the scope of the prohibition on nepotism under Section
79 of the Local Government Code 15 (LGC). 16 The siblings pointed out that
the nature of the position involves functions that require the highest degree
of trust and confidence between the appointing authority and the appointee.
17 These functions included:

[1.] To see to it that the appropriate procedures in the utilization of

heavy equipments (sic), trucks and service vehicles by the
officials and employees of the LGU are strictly observed;
[2.] Continuously observe, study and implement appropriate
measures and procedures to improve or streamline the heavy
equipment and motor pool operations and instill the acceptable
attitude and mindset of the personnel assigned in the said
department;
[3.] Evaluate the impact, effects and relevance of the adopted
measures and improvements in the over-all performance of the
said Economic Enterprise Department in relation to the standards
set for its efficient and sustainable operation;
[4.] Report personally and directly to the Chief Executive matters
that need to be decided and acted upon by the Mayor including
the submittal of his quarterly reports to the Mayor's office;
[5.] Perform such other functions as may be directed by the Mayor
including the monitoring of unscrupulous or corrupt practices that
may be committed in the said department and recommend
appropriate action thereof. 18 (Emphasis and underscoring
omitted)
Petitioner and her brothers also denied that Antonio falsified his PDS,
explaining that he answered "No" to the question on having a relative within
the third degree of consanguinity or affinity in the national government, but
answered "Yes" to the question on having a relative within the third degree
of consanguinity or affinity in the local government. 19
On the matter of the alleged falsity of the salary grade of Antonio's
position, the siblings clarified that they merely relied on the Plantilla of
Casual Appointment which was prepared by and originated from the Human
Resource Management Office (HRMO). Moreover, the increases in the salary
grade were based on the Annual Appropriation Budget submitted by the
Executive Department and duly approved by the Sangguniang Bayan. As
such, the salary increases were based on the Annual Budget Ordinances of
the local government unit (LGU). The siblings pointed out that the actual
disbursements of salaries and wages for the Heavy Equipment/Motorpool
Division were well within the Annual Budget for calendar years 2007 to 2012.
In fact, these salary increases passed the government audit. 20
Petitioner and her brothers maintained that the hiring of Antonio did
not cause undue injury to the government, but had even proved beneficial
and advantageous to the government considering the 1,544% increase in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 annual gross receipts of the heavy equipment operations from the calendar
years 2006 to 2011. 21
In its Decision 22 dated September 7, 2016, the Ombudsman found the
charge of nepotism against Rogelio unmeritorious and also dismissed the
charge of falsification against Antonio. However, the Ombudsman found
Rogelio and petitioner liable for grave misconduct. The dispositive portion of
the Ombudsman's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence, respondents
ROGELIO N. QUIÑO, Mayor (SG 27) and CECILIA QUIÑO-REJAS,
Municipal Budget Officer (SG 24), both of the local government of
Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, are administratively liable for GRAVE
MISCONDUCT and are meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE
SERVICE, together with the corresponding accessory penalties of
forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, bar from
taking civil service examinations and perpetual disqualification from
holding any public office.
In the event that the principal penalty of dismissal can no
longer be enforced due to respondents' separation from the
service, retirement or any form of severance, it shall be converted
into a Fine in the amount equivalent to their basic salary for one (1)
year, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deducted
from terminal leave benefits or any receivable from the government,
or respondents may opt to directly pay the fine. DETACa

The administrative complaint against respondent ANTONIO

QUIÑO, JR.[,] Mechanical Shop Foreman (SG 11), also of the local
government of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of substantial evidence.
SO ORDERED. 23

In holding petitioner and Rogelio liable for grave misconduct, the

Ombudsman found their act of signing and approving the Plantilla of Casual
Appointments which upgraded Antonio's position as Mechanical Shop
Foreman from salary grade 15 to 18, and of certifying the appointments and
the existence of an appropriation legally made for the purpose, respectively,
to have "transgressed some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." 24
The acts were also considered grave because they were "committed with the
element of corruption, a willful intent to violate the law, and disregard
established rules, i.e., the rules on compensation and position classification
under [Republic Act (RA)] No. 6758 and [Department of Budget and
Management (DBM)] Circulars, and to favor their sibling Antonio." 25 The
Ombudsman was unconvinced with their claim about relying on the HRMO
which prepared the documents in light of the fact that it was only Antonio
who benefited from the salary upgrading. 26
As for Antonio, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against him
because he merely benefited from the salary upgrade as the appointee.
There was also no merit in the charge of falsification as he, in fact, answered
"Yes" to the question on whether he was related to the appointing authority
within the fourth civil degree of affinity or consanguinity. 27
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioner and Rogelio moved for the reconsideration of the Decision
but the same was denied in the Ombudsman's Order 28 dated October 28,
2016.
Thereafter, petitioner and Rogelio filed two petitions before the CA
under Rule 65 and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which were consolidated by
the appellate court. However, considering that the two petitions involved
different modes of appeal which are mutually exclusive, the CA dismissed
the petition filed under Rule 65 (CA-G.R. SP No. 07765-MIN) for being a
superfluity. 29
The CA ruled that petitioner and Rogelio were guilty of grave
misconduct for granting unto themselves the determination of the salary
increase of Antonio, in contravention of Sections 81 and 325 of the LGC and
Sangguniang Bayan Ordinance Nos. 2000-151 and 2001-157. Petitioner
cannot likewise evade liability as she, being the local budget officer, ought
to know the budget that can only be allocated for Antonio's position. 30
These findings, notwithstanding, the CA held that the subsequent re-
elections of Rogelio as Municipal Mayor in 2013 and as Vice-Governor in
2016 operated as a condonation to his offenses that happened in 2009 to
2 0 1 2 . 31 Thus, the CA was constrained to reverse the ruling of the
Ombudsman insofar as he was concerned. 32 The dispositive portion of the
CA Decision dated February 15, 2018 reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing circumstances, this Court RESOLVES
to:
1. DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No.
07765-MIN; and
2. PARTLY GRANT the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No.
07826-MIN. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 07
September 2016 and Order dated 28 October 2016 issued
by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-M-A-12-0201,
insofar as it held petitioner Rogelio N. Quiño
administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, in the light of
jurisprudence, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . All other
dispositions in the assailed Decision and Order are hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 33

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision, but the

same was denied in the assailed Resolution of the CA dated July 6, 2018. aDSIHc

PETITION BEFORE THE COURT

In her Petition, petitioner avers in the main that the CA erred in holding
her liable as the former Municipal Budget Officer for grave misconduct. She
insists that her mere certifications as to the availability of appropriations in
the Plantilla for Casual Appointments of Antonio did not have anything to do
directly with the gradual increase in his salary grades 34 and were duly
supported by appropriation ordinances duly passed by the Sangguniang
Bayan. 35 Petitioner also stresses that these included all the heads of the
Economic Enterprise Division of the LGU and not just Antonio. 36 Hence, she
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 asserts that the CA erred in holding her liable for grave misconduct absent
any evidence of corruption, intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
any established rule. 37
Petitioner argues further that the CA erred in holding that the salary
adjustments of Antonio were illegal per se without considering the actual
work he performed as Division Head of the Motorpool and Heavy Equipment
Operations. She contends that the designation of Antonio as Mechanical
Shop Foreman was just an unfortunate inadvertence, and that since his
appointment in 2008, he had always performed functions requiring
supervisory skills and experience. Thus, petitioner defends that the salary
adjustments were made to conform to Antonio's actual work, functions and
duties. 38
In its Comment, 39 the Ombudsman counters that as Municipal Budget
Officer, petitioner was aware of Ordinance Nos. 2000-151 and 2001-157
setting the salary grade of a Mechanical Shop Foreman to 11 and she had
the duty to comply with these. Instead, she repeatedly participated in
increasing the salary grade of her brother to 15 or 18. 40 The Ombudsman is
unconvinced about petitioner's defense that her participation was limited to
certifying the existence of appropriations since her functions included being
in charge of the Municipal Budget Office and being part of the Local Finance
Committee. These functions meant reviewing the budget proposal for the
Municipality's Economic Enterprise that included the component for salaries
for the Motorpool and Heavy Equipment Unit, and assisting her brother
Rogelio in preparing said proposed budget or the Annual Appropriation
Budget submitted by the Executive Department. 41
The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) also filed
its Consolidated Comment 42 which chiefly adopts the arguments of the
Ombudsman in its Comment. It adds that petitioner continues to insist that
the upgrading was actually an adjustment of Antonio's salary to conform to
his actual functions in accordance with "equal pay for equal work." However,
a simple principle and policy is not executory on its own and must,
nonetheless, work within the legal framework. Thus, considering that
petitioner failed to procure the approval of the DBM on the salary increases
of Antonio as required by law, the DILG agrees that the finding of grave
misconduct against petitioner is justified. 43
Petitioner filed her Consolidated Reply 44 which basically repleads her
arguments in her Petition.
ISSUE
The sole issue to be resolved here is whether the CA erred in upholding
the finding of the Ombudsman of grave misconduct against petitioner.
RULING OF THE COURT
The Petition is meritorious.
The Court, as a rule, does not entertain questions of facts in a Rule 45
petition. As a trier of laws, the Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh
again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. 45
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Furthermore, the "errors" which the Court may review in a petition for review
on certiorari are those of the CA, and not directly those of the trial court or
the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which rendered the decision in
the first instance. 46
There are, however, several well-recognized exceptions to the above-
stated general rule and one of which is when the findings of fact of the lower
tribunal, which was upheld by the CA, was based on a misapprehension of
facts and was clearly not supported by extant evidence. 47 The Court in this
case finds the occasion to apply this exception. The quantum of proof
necessary to prove a charge in an administrative case is substantial
evidence, which is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 48 Such quantum was not
met here. While the Court rules at the outset that the adjustments to the
salary grade of Antonio were made without legal basis, the facts on record
show that petitioner's act or omission has no material connection thereto
and does not constitute grave misconduct or any administrative offense for
that matter. ETHIDa

Local government units are endowed with power to fix the

compensation of their officials and employees. Under the LGC, the function
of salary determination, which includes any increase or adjustment, is
lodged in the sanggunian concerned. This is clear from Sections 81 and 447
of the LGC, to wit:
SEC. 81. Compensation of Local Officials and Employees. —
The compensation of local officials and personnel shall be determined
by the sanggunian concerned: Provided, That the increase in
compensation of elective local officials shall take effect only after the
terms of office of those approving such increase shall have expired:
Provided, further, That the increase in compensation of the appointive
officials and employees shall take effect as provided in the ordinance
authorizing such increase: Provided, however, That said increases
shall not exceed the limitations on budgetary allocations for personal
services provided under Title Five, Book II of this Code: Provided,
finally, That such compensation may be based upon the pertinent
provisions of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-Seven Fifty-Eight (R.A. No.
6758), otherwise known as the "Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989."
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. —
(a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the
municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and
appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its
inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper
exercise of the corporate powers of the municipality as provided for
under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an
efficient and effective municipal government, and in this
connection shall:
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (viii) Determine the positions and salaries, wages,
allowances and other emoluments and benefits of
officials and employees paid wholly or mainly from
municipal funds and provide for expenditures
necessary for the proper conduct of programs,
projects, services, and activities of the municipal
government;
xxx xxx xxx
Verily, in this case, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted Ordinance Nos.
2000-151 and 2001-157 which fixed the salary grade of Mechanical Shop
Foreman to 11. Parenthetically, this salary determination is compliant with
DBM Local Budget Circular (LBC) No. 61, which provides that a Mechanical
Shop Foreman is a salary grade 11 position. DBM LBC No. 61 was, in turn,
prepared pursuant to Section 6 of RA No. 6758 which states that:
SECTION 6. Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles
and Salary Grades of the Compensation and Position Classification
System. — All positions in the government covered under Section 4
hereof shall be allocated to their proper position titles and salary
g r a d e s in accordance with the Index of Occupational Services,
Position Titles and Salary Grades of the Compensation and Position
Classification System which shall be prepared by the DBM.
(Underscoring supplied)
It is undisputed that when Antonio was re-appointed as a Mechanical
Shop Foreman in a casual status beginning January 2009, his salary grade
was 15. From the period of July 12, 2012 to October 11, 2012, his salary
grade went up to 18. These salary adjustments, as correctly held by the
Ombudsman and the CA, contravened Ordinance Nos. 2000-151 and 2001-
157 and DBM LBC No. 61. No countervailing evidence was presented to show
that the ordinances were revoked or superseded by a later ordinance.
Neither was there any proof that DBM LBC No. 61 had been revised during
the relevant periods.
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit before the Ombudsman, petitioner and
Rogelio tried instead to justify the salary grade adjustments of Antonio by
claiming that his job title as Mechanical Shop Foreman was a misnomer and
that the true nature of his work was supervisory and necessitated a higher
pay. This, however, does not explain the unilateral upgrading of Antonio's
salary grade without the participation of the Sangguniang Bayan as required
by law. cSEDTC

Moreover, the highest-ranking position provided in DBM LBC No. 61 is a

Mechanical Shop General Foreman with a salary grade of only 13, which is
still lower than what was given to Antonio. So, too, despite characterizing the
designation of Antonio as inadvertent, petitioner and Rogelio nonetheless
failed to supply what Antonio's proper designation ought to be. If indeed the
designation was erroneous, it was odd how the error was perpetuated in four
years every time his appointment was renewed. If indeed the designation
was erroneous and the adjustments to Antonio's salary grade were merely
intended to give what was due him, the act was therefore a reclassification
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of the position and should bear the imprimatur of the DBM, pursuant to
Section 4 of DBM LBC No. 53. Thus:
ON POSITION CLASSIFICATION
SECTION 4. Staffing Pattern. — The staffing pattern as
designed by the LGUs in accordance with the minimum standards and
guidelines prescribed by the Civil Service Commission shall contain
classes of positions that conform with the classes of positions
established under R.A. No. 6758. Classes of positions not consistent
thereof shall be subject to approval by the DBM through the
Compensation and Position Classification Bureau.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 4 (a) of DBM LBC No. 53 further enumerates the documents
and information needed for submission to the DBM in seeking approval for
the creation of a new class title. Section 4 (b) thereof, on the other hand,
provides that reclassification or conversion of positions is subject to the
approval of the sanggunian concerned. There was no showing that there was
compliance, much less any attempt to comply, with Section 4 (a) and (b) of
DBM LBC No. 53. Petitioner, as an alternative defense, simply denies that the
adjustments amounted to reclassifying the position of Antonio. She
maintains that the adjustments were simply made to correspond with the
principle of providing equal pay for substantially equal work and of basing
differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities,
and qualification requirements of the positions. 49 It bears emphasis,
however, that this policy of the State under Section 2 of RA No. 6758 is not a
license to disregard all the other conditions set forth in the same law and in
other issuances duly made in consonance with RA No. 6758.
The foregoing discussion, notwithstanding, the Court finds that
petitioner had no participation in the questionable act of increasing the
salary grade of Antonio. Consequently, the CA erred in affirming the finding
of the Ombudsman that petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct.
Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a
deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. It is considered
grave where the elements of corruption are present including a clear intent
to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. 50 To
constitute misconduct, however, it is likewise imperative that the act or
omission complained of must have a direct relation to the public officer's
duties and affect not only his character as a private individual, but also, and
more importantly, the performance of his official duties as a public servant.
51 The misfeasance or malfeasance must amount to either maladministration
or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office.
52

Hence, to hold petitioner liable for misconduct, the acts or omissions

for which she was charged must be of direct relation to and be connected
with the performance of her official duties as the Municipal Budget Officer 53
and the same must be willful or intentional.
It bears emphasis at this point that the case against petitioner revolved
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 around her certifications appearing in the Plantilla of Casual Appointments of
Antonio. It was alleged that in certifying the same, petitioner effectively "had
a hand" in irregularly upgrading the salary of Antonio. However, a simple
reading of the Plantilla of Casual Appointments plainly shows the extent of
petitioner's acts to be only with respect to certifying that appropriations did
exist for the position.
On the other hand, it is undisputed that the preparation of the Plantilla
of Casual Appointments was done by the HRMO, as in fact, the signature of
one Annie B. Francisco, HRMO IV appears in all of the documents under the
phrase "Prepared by." It follows therefore that it was also the HRMO which
indicated the salary grades of the appointees in the documents, including
Antonio's, and which, in fine, determined their correctness. It would be unfair
to hold petitioner liable for the mistakes contained in the Plantilla of Casual
Appointments considering that nothing in the enumerated duties of a local
budget officer under Section 475 of the LGC, or even of the Local Finance
Committee under Section 316 of the LGC of which a local budget officer is a
member, provides that he or she is responsible in the preparation of the
appointment papers of appointive employees of the local government unit.
In the same manner, nothing in said sections explicitly requires that the local
budget officer must ensure the correct salary grades of the positions to
which local government employees are appointed by the local chief
executive. Thus:
ARTICLEV
The Budget Officer
SECTION 475. Qualifications, Powers and Duties. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The budget officer shall take charge of the budget office
and shall:
(1) Prepare forms, orders, and circulars embodying
instructions on budgetary and appropriation matters for
the signature of the governor or mayor, as the case may
be;
(2) Review and consolidate the budget proposals of different
departments and offices of the local government unit;
(3) Assist the governor or mayor, as the case may be, in the
preparation of the budget and during budget hearings;
(4) Study and evaluate budgetary implications of proposed
legislation and submit comments and recommendations
thereon;
(5) Submit periodic budgetary reports to the Department of
Budget and Management;
(6) Coordinate with the treasurer, accountant, and the
planning and development coordinator for the purpose of
budgeting;
(7) Assist the sanggunian concerned in reviewing the
approved budgets of component local government units;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (8) Coordinate with the planning and development
coordinator in the formulation of the local government unit
development plan; and
(c) Exercise such other powers and perform such other
duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance. AaCTcI

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 316. Local Finance Committee . — There is hereby
created in every province, city or municipality a local finance
committee to be composed of the local planning and development
officer, the local budget officer, and the local treasurer. It shall
exercise the following functions:
(a) Determine the income reasonably projected as collectible for
the ensuing fiscal year;
(b) Recommend the appropriate tax and other revenue measures
or borrowings which may be appropriate to support the budget;
(c) Recommend to the local chief executive concerned the level of
the annual expenditures and the ceilings of spending for
economic, social, and general services based on the approved
local development plans;
(d) Recommend to the local chief executive concerned the proper
allocation of expenditures for each development activity between
current operating expenditures and capital outlays;
(e) Recommend to the local chief executive concerned the amount
to be allocated for capital outlay under each development
activity or infrastructure project;
(f) Assist the sangguniang panlalawigan in the review and
evaluation of budget of component cities and municipalities in
the case of provincial finance committee, the barangay budgets
in the case of city or municipal finance committee, and
recommend the appropriate action thereon;
(g) Assist the sanggunian concerned in the analysis and review of
annual regular and supplemental budgets of the respective local
government unit to determine compliance with statutory and
administrative requirements; and
(h) Conduct semi-annual review and general examination of cost
and accomplishments against performance standards applied in
undertaking development projects.
xxx xxx xxx
In holding that petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct, nonetheless,
the CA ruled that as a local budget officer, petitioner knew or ought to know
the budget that can only be allocated for Antonio's position. At this point, the
Court emphasizes again the specific act for which petitioner is being called
to account. It has nothing to do with budget preparations and any act related
to it leading up to the enactment of an appropriation ordinance by the
sanggunian. In this regard, the Court does agree with the observation of the
CA about the responsibility of petitioner to know the budget allocation for
Antonio's position. The Court completely differs, however, with the CA's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 finding that petitioner failed to carry out her responsibility. Petitioner, on the
contrary, did perform her duty to verify the budget that can be allocated to
Antonio. She has sufficiently explained that in certifying the existence of
appropriations in the Plantilla of Casual Appointments issued to Antonio, she
consulted the appropriations in the ordinances approving the annual budget
for the relevant calendar years under the Economic Enterprises of the
Municipality. The evidence she submitted support her claim that the
appropriations in the ordinances for the salaries and wages of employees
under Motorpool and Heavy Equipment Unit were not broken down into each
position. Rather, they were in lump-sum and gradually increased over the
years. 54 Glaringly, the Ombudsman and the CA failed to make any finding
that the salaries and wages received by employees under Motorpool and
Heavy Equipment Unit ever exceeded the appropriations during the relevant
periods. It was also not disputed that the salaries paid passed the
government audit. 55
The next best connection that the CA had as regards petitioner's duties
with that of her purported offense concerns assisting the mayor in the
preparation of the budget and the sanggunian in the analysis and review
thereof. The CA appears to suggest that petitioner ought to know the correct
salary grade of Antonio's position because she was involved in the budget
preparations, analysis and review. Suffice it to state, however, the duties of
petitioner merely speak of "assisting," and notably, with regard to Section
316 (g) of the LGC, which the CA emphasized on, 56 it bears stressing that
petitioner was a mere member of the Local Finance Committee to which the
function under Section 316 (g) is vested. It is, in other words, a shared
responsibility with the local planning and development officer and the local
treasurer. EcTCAD

To be sure, the duty of budget preparation and its enactment are

primarily lodged with the local chief executive and the sanggunian,
respectively. Significantly, in this regard, there is nary an allegation that the
appropriations ordinances which petitioner relied upon were irregular to
begin with. There is neither, at the very least, any allegation against
petitioner anent any negligence or misconduct on her part insofar as
previous budget preparations were concerned. As such, the Court is not
prepared to make any conclusion on the matter. As has been demonstrated,
the duties of petitioner were largely subordinate. Allegations of irregularities
surrounding budget preparation and enactment would, perforce, entail
piecing together the actions or participation as well of other officials who
were equally responsible or even more responsible than she.
All told, there is no substantial evidence to hold petitioner
administratively liable in this case. To reiterate, the charge against her was
only with respect to her certifications appearing in the Plantilla of Casual
Appointments of Antonio. Each of the Plantilla of Casual Appointments
evidently shows that the certifications made by petitioner were clearly and
expressly limited to the existence of appropriations for the position. 57 Upon
consulting the appropriations ordinances and verifying that the intended
appropriations for the positions stated in the Plantilla of Casual
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Appointments were sufficiently covered, petitioner had dutifully performed
what was incumbent upon her.
In order to establish administrative liability for misconduct,
there must be a nexus between the public official's acts and the
functions of his or her office . 58 Misconduct being an intentional act, as
well, the holding of the Court in PNP-CIDG v. Villafuerte, 59 although involving
different charges, is illuminating. The Court in said case noted of a nexus
that should also be established between the functions of the official and a
scheme to defraud the Government. The Court cautioned that the
Ombudsman cannot satisfy the threshold of substantial evidence using only
conjectures and suppositions.
Indeed, while the quantum of evidence in administrative cases does
not require that it be overwhelming or preponderant in order to be
considered substantial, this does not sanction drawing a nexus that is
tenuous or rests on shaky grounds. The Court has always lauded the
Ombudsman in fulfilling its all too important role as "protector of the
people," but the Court has, at the same time, drawn the line when it
becomes overzealous at the expense of public officers . 60 The Court
once again puts its foot down in the shot-gun approach employed by the
Ombudsman in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision
dated February 15, 2018 and Resolution dated July 6, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP
Nos. 07765-MIN and 07826-MIN, as well as the Office of the Ombudsman
Decision dated September 7, 2016 and Order dated October 28, 2016 in
OMB-M-A-12-0201 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Cecilia Q.
Rejas is hereby ABSOLVED from any administrative liability in connection
with the instant case.
SO ORDERED. HSAcaE

Peralta, C.J., Carandang, Zalameda and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Also appears as "Cecilia Quiño-Rejas" in some parts of the rollo.

1. Rollo , pp. 11-34, excluding Annexes.

2. Id. at 36-46. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and

concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Walter S. Ong.

3. Id. at 49-57.
4. Id. at 58-68.

5. Id. at 69-73.
6. Id. at 76-84.

7. Also appears as "Quino" in some parts of the rollo.

8. Rollo , pp. 59, 76.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 9. AN ORDINANCE CREATING SOME PLANTILLA POSITIONS FOR THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNIT OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MANOLO FORTICH, BUKIDNON;
rollo, pp. 94-96.
10. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2000-151 OF THE SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN FOR THE INSERTION OF SOME ADDITIONAL PLANTILLA POSITIONS
DEEMED NECESSARY FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MUNICIPAL
OPERATIONS; id . at 97-99.

11. Rollo , pp. 59, 77.

12. Id.
13. Id. at 101-107.

14. Id. at 102.

15. Republic Act No. 7160, AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
OF 1991, October 10, 1991.

16. Section 79 of the LGC provides that "[n]o person shall be appointed in the
career service of the local government if he is related within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing or recommending
authority."
17. Rollo , pp. 103-104.

18. Id.
19. Id. at 104.

20. Id. at 104-105.

21. Id. at 105.

22. Supra note 4.

23. Id. at 67-68.

24. Id. at 63-64. Italics omitted.

25. Id. at 64. Italics omitted.

26. Id.
27. Id. at 67.

28. Supra note 5.

29. Id. at 41.

30. Id. at 42-43.

31. Id. at 44-45.

32. Id. at 45.

33. Id. at 45-46.

34. Id. at 19.

35. Id. at 25.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 36. Id. at 26.

37. Id. at 28.

38. Id. at 30-31.

39. Id. at 289-301.

40. Id. at 292.

41. Id. at 295.

42. Id. at 310-325.

43. Id. at 319.

44. Id. at 352-360.

45. PNP-CIDG v. Villafuerte, G.R. Nos. 219771 & 219773, September 18, 2018,
accessed at
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64554>.

46. Miro v. Mendoza , 721 Phil. 772, 786 (2013).

47. See Nicolas v. Desierto, 488 Phil. 158, 168 (2004).

48. Id. at 169, citing RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec. 5 and Ocampo v.
Ombudsman, 379 Phil. 21, 27 (2000).
49. Rollo , p. 31, citing RA No. 6758, Sec. 2.

50. De Castro v. Field Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman, 810 Phil. 31,
47-48 (2017).

51. Id. at 48.

52. See Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio, 683 Phil. 553, 575 (2012), citing
Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr., 367 Phil. 162, 166 (1999).
53. See Government Service Insurance System v. Mayordomo, 665 Phil. 131, 149
(2011).

54. See rollo, pp. 177-204.

55. Id. at 104-105.

56. Id. at 43; Section 316 (g) of the LGC states: "Assist the sanggunian concerned
in the analysis and review of annual regular and supplemental budgets of the
respective local government unit to determine compliance with statutory and
administrative requirements."
57. Rollo , pp. 147-176.

58. See Ombudsman v. Apolonio, supra note 52, at 575.

59. Supra note 45.

60. See Lukban vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 238563, February 12, 2020, p. 7.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com