For this Court's resolution is a Petition for Certiorari[1] 

assailing the Office of

the Ombudsman's April 19, 2013 Resolution[2] and January 8, 2014
Order[3] in OMB-C-C-13-0010. This case originated from the December 26,
2012 Affidavit-Complaint[4] filed by Negros Oriental Governor Roel R.
Degamo (Degamo) against Department of Budget and Management
(Department) Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos (Relampagos).
The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (Council)
requested the release of P961,550,000.00 to the Negros Oriental province
(provincial government) to finance the rehabilitation of various
infrastructures[5] damaged by Typhoon Sendong and a 6.9-magnitude
earthquake.[6] The Office of the President, through Executive Secretary
Paquito Ochoa, Jr., approved the request, charging the amount against the
Calamity Fund for Fiscal Year 2012, subject to availability.[7]
The Department, through its Regional Office No. VII, issued on June 5,
2012 Special Allotment Release Order No. ROVII-12-0009202,[8] which
covered the approved amount. It also issued a Notice of Cash
Allocation[9] worth P480,775,000.00, or 50% of the approved sum.[10]
In a June 18, 2012 letter[11] to Budget and Management Secretary Florencio
Abad (Abad), Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio L. Singson
requested the Department not to indicate the recipient local government unit
in the Special Allotment Release Order yet, since the Department of Public
Works and Highways needed to evaluate the local government units'
capability to implement projects prior to the release of a fund. Thus, Abad
ordered Re1ampagos to withdraw the previously issued Special Allotment
Release Order and Notice of Cash Allocation.[12]
In a June 19, 2012 letter-advice,[13] Relampagos informed Degamo that the
Department is withdrawing the Special Allotment Release Order because its
release did not comply with the guidelines on large-scale fund releases for
infrastructure projects. He said this withdrawal was effective until the
Department of Public Works and Highways could determine that the local
government units are able to implement the projects.[14]
On June 29, 2012, the Department's Regional Office VII Director
advised[15] Degamo that the Special Allotment Release Order had been
withdrawn,[16] and ordered the provincial government to return and deposit
P480,775,000.00, the previously released amount, to the National Treasury.
[17]

On July 16, 2012, Degamo informed[18] Relampagos that the provincial

government would not be returning the funds, and claimed that he was
illegally withdrawing funds unbeknownst to higher authorities.[19]
On December 26, 2012, Degamo filed before the Office of the Ombudsman
a Complaint for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions against
Relampagos. He alleged that when Relampagos wrote the June 19, 2012
letter-advice, Relampagos falsely posed himself to have been authorized by
President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. Degamo added that Relampagos
usurped the official functions of the Executive Secretary, who had the sole
authority to write and speak for and on behalf of the President.[20]
In his Counter-Affidavit,[21] Relampagos maintained that he wrote the letter
as the Department's Undersecretary for Operations.[22] He claimed that he
acted upon Abad's instructions, and that the Office of the President was
informed of the withdrawal.[23]
In its April 19, 2013 Resolution, [24] the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed
the Complaint.[25] It found no probable cause to charge Relampagos with
Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions[26] since he signed the letter in
his own name and under the words, "By Authority of the
Secretary."[27] There was also no positive express, and explicit representation
made.[28] Neither did Relampagos act under pretense of official position, nor
without legal authority.[29]
The dispositive portion of the Office of the Ombudsman's April 19, 2013
Resolution read:

WHEREFORE, the present complaint against MARIO L.

RELAMPAGOS is hereby DISMISSED for lack of probable cause.
SO RESOLVED.[30] (Emphasis in the original)
In its January 8, 2014 Order, [31] the Office of the Ombudsman denied
Degamo's Motion for Reconsideration.[32]
Hence, on May 7, 2014, Degamo filed this Petition for Certiorari, [33] arguing
that public respondent, the Office of the Ombudsman, gravely abused its
discretion when it held that there was no probable cause to indict private
respondent Relampagos of the crime charged.[34]
Petitioner does not dispute the Department's authority in approving or
disapproving Special Allotment Release Orders; however, it must be under
the law.[35] According to him, the funding assistance was a calamity fund
governed by Republic Act No. 10121, or the Philippine Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Act of 2010, and the special provisions of
Republic Act No. 10155 or the General Appropriations Act of 2012 (2012
GAA),[36] as provided in the Department's Budget Circular No. 2012-2.
[37]
 Per these laws, releasing funds to the implementing agency requires the
approval of the President with favorable recommendation of the Council.
[38]
 Hence, there was no need for the Department of Public Works and
Highways' prior determination before the Special Allotment Release Order
could be released.[39]
In his Comment,[40] private respondent counters that he withdrew the Special
Allotment Release Order as the Undersecretary for Operations, [41] under the
August 18, 2011 Department Order No. 2011-11.[42] He claims that nowhere
in his letter did he assume acting [on] behalf of the President or the
Executive Secretary[43] as he signed it under his name, using the words, "By
Authority of the Secretary."[44] He contends that he acted upon Abad's orders,
whom the President instructed to comply with the 2012 GAA provision
"allowing delegation of nationally[-]funded infrastructure projects [only] to
[local government units] with the capability to implement the projects by
themselves."[45] The President was duly informed of the reasons for the
withdrawal, and has neither rejected nor reversed it.[46]
In its Comment,[47] public respondent argued that it did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against private respondent.
[48]
 It invoked the same department order which authorized private
respondent to sign for and on behalf of Abad. [49] Moreover, it argued that it
"has the ultimate and unfettered discretion to determine whether a criminal
case should be filed against an erring public official, except only upon a
clear showing of grave abuse of discretion which petitioner utterly failed to
establish."[50]
On February 24, 2015, petitioner filed his Consolidated Reply. [51] He avers
that public respondent's findings are subject to this Court's power of judicial
review.[52] He maintains that private respondent's cancellation of the Special
Allotment Release Order and Notice of Cash Allocation is contrary to
law[53] and the rulings in Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr. and Araullo v. Aquino.[54] The
Department, he asserts, "relinquishes its jurisdiction, disposition[,] and
control of public funds once a [Notice of Cash Allocation] is
issued."[55] Thus, private respondent no longer had authority to cancel both
documents pertaining to the calamity fund already deposited to the
provincial government's account.[56] Additionally, private respondent
allegedly usurped the "sole prerogative of the President to suspend or stop
further expenditures under Section 38 of the Administrative Code of
1987."[57]
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not public respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Complaint for
usurpation of authority or official functions, which petitioner filed against
private respondent, for lack of probable cause.

The Petition is dismissed.