REPUBLIC OF THE
represented by HON. SIMEON V.
MARCELO, in his capacity as former
OMBUDSMAN; and HON. PRIMO C.
MIRO, in his capacity as Deputy
Ombudsman, Visayas,
Petitioners, Present:
- versus - Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
and
Nachura, JJ.
WOODROW CANASTILLO and
ALLAN G. VALENCIANO, Promulgated:
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This Petition for Review on
Certiorari[1]
assails the January 21, 2005 Decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76625 which reversed and set aside the
June 27, 2002 Decision[3] of
the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in OMB-VIS-ADM 2000-0200 finding
respondents guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty; and its May 5, 2006 Resolution[4]
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
On
Consequently, an administrative
complaint was filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas
charging respondents Woodrow Canastillo and Allan G. Valenciano, Provincial
Engineer and General Services Officer of
Respondents alleged that the
equipment units were old but still serviceable when acquired by the province in
the early 80’s. In 1991, the equipment
units were brought to
On
The
facts set forth show that the subject heavy equipments were already
unserviceable at the time the COA-8 conducted an ocular inspection of the same
on
The
undersigned is convinced that respondents did endeavor to dispose of said heavy
equipments after finding that the same could no longer be of further use to the
province. However, this fact does not in any way absolve respondents from
liability therefor as the subject heavy equipments, albeit unserviceable, are
still under their direct supervision and accountability. Respondents should
have still exercised reasonable precautions and such care as custodian of said
equipments in order to obviate further deterioration of the same, pending
approval by COA-8 of their request for their disposal. Evidently, the
equipments were just left in a place open to saline sea breeze and sea vapor,
causing the same to deteriorate further. Had there been careful and efficient
supervision and diligent action on the part of respondents for the safekeeping
and proper disposition of said equipments, the conditions depicted in the
report of COA-8 could have been averted or remedied and the resulting
perception of prejudice to the public interest could have been avoided. This,
respondents failed to do and hence, they must bear the consequence of their
neglect.
Wherefore,
respondents Woodrow Canastillo and Allan G. Valenciano are found guilty of
Simple Neglect of Duty for which they are hereby fined equivalent to their one
(1) month’s pay and warned that commission by them of a similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.[8]
Respondents appealed the decision before
the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman[9]
ruling that the finding of neglect of duty lacks substantial evidence and that
respondents exercised due diligence in utilizing all measures and resources
available to them in supervising the condition, state and use of the equipment.
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, however, same was denied; hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner contends that the assailed
Decision of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of fine equivalent to one month
salary is final and unappealable, hence, immediately executory pursuant to Section
27[10]
of Republic Act No. 6770 (RA 6770), otherwise known as “The Ombudsman Act of
1989” and Section 7,[11]
Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 or the “The Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman.” As such, the
Court of Appeals had no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse
the same.
Petitioner likewise argues that there
is substantial evidence to hold respondents guilty of simple neglect of duty
since the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman was anchored on the report of
the Audit Team and on the ocular inspection it conducted. Further, the respondents did not controvert
the findings that the equipment units were virtually abandoned and unduly
exposed to the damaging effects of the saline sea breeze and sea vapor.[12]
Indeed, Section 27 of RA 6770 provides
that any order, directive, or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing
the penalty of public censure or reprimand, and suspension of not more than one month's salary, shall be final and
unappealable. In the instant case, the
penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman after finding herein respondents
guilty of simple neglect of duty was “fine equivalent to their one (1) month’s
pay.”[13] Following our ruling in Herrera v. Bohol,[14]
the penalty imposed upon respondents, which is fine equivalent to one (1) month
salary, is included in the phrase “suspension of not more than one month’s
salary,” thus:
In truth, the Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to its authority to promulgate rules to implement R.A. No. 6770, has clarified this ambiguity of its Sec. 27. Sec. 7, Rule III of its Rules of Procedure, Administrative Order No. 7, provides, viz:
Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in
case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand,
suspension of not more than one month, or a
fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final and
unappealable x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)[15]
However, it is also settled that
decisions of administrative agencies which are declared final and unappealable
by law are still subject to judicial review if they fail the test of
arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of
law. When such administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to
compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse the
factual findings.[16]
In the instant case, respondents’
recourse from the adverse decision of the Office of the Ombudsman would have
been to file a petition for certiorari, instead of a petition for review under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. Considering, however, that the arguments in
the said petition alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office
of the Ombudsman, we shall treat the said petition as one for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. [17]
The Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman
on respondents’ administrative liability was primarily based on the audit
report and ocular inspection conducted by the COA-8 finding that the equipment
units were left in a place open to saline
sea breeze and sea vapor causing it to deteriorate further.
It is well settled that only
substantial evidence is required to sustain a finding of guilt in an
administrative case,[18]
and findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when
supported by substantial evidence.[19]
Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[20]
In the instant case, we find that a review
of the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman is necessary. When administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such
nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to
reverse its factual findings.[21] A reading of the assailed Decision shows that
respondents were able to controvert the allegations of negligence and have
shown that they exercised such diligence and prudence required of them in the
care and custody of the subject equipment.
In fact, the Office of the Ombudsman stated in its Decision that the
contention of respondents was meritorious; that the unserviceability and
deterioration beyond economic repair of the equipment units were attributable
to the fact that they were purchased second hand; and that they had been used
in the daily maintenance of the roads of the province for about 10-14 years,
which is way beyond their serviceable life.
After finding the equipment units
useless, respondents still exerted efforts to maximize their utility. Respondent Canastillo instructed a mechanic from
the Provincial Engineering Office to salvage the usable parts as reserve
replacement parts for other heavy equipment owned by the province which
explains why there are missing parts. On
the part of respondent Valenciano, he prepared and submitted in July 1994 an
Inventory and Inspection Report of Unserviceable Property and other documents
necessary to effect its disposal through public auction; however, it was not
acted upon by COA until 1996.[22]
The facts clearly show that
respondents exercised due care and diligence in the custody and disposition of the
unserviceable equipment, thus negating the imputation of simple neglect of duty
which, as defined, is the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a
task expected of him, signifying “disregard of a duty resulting from
carelessness or indifference.”[23]
In the discharge of his duties, a
public officer is to use that prudence, caution, and attention which careful
men use in the management of their affairs.[24] Under the circumstances, there is nothing more
that respondents can do to protect and preserve the worn-out and useless
equipment but to dispose of the same in the way they deem best. The diligence and prudence exercised by
respondents in maximizing the utility of the equipment negate any imputation of
neglect of duty.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 76625 reversing the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
OMB-VIS-ADM 2000-0200 finding respondents guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and
its Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 11-27.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Namely: 1) Grader Mitsubushi, Md 1 LG2-H; 2) Road Roler, Ingerso 11-Rand, Md1
SP-48DD; 3) Payloader, Komatsu WA 200-1; 4) Dump Truck, ISUZU TDJ50; 5) Dump
Truck, ISUZU TDJ50, and 6) Crawler Tractor, Komatzu.
[6] Rollo, p. 41.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Section 27. Effectivity and Finality of
Decisions.— (1) All provisionary orders at the Office of the Ombudsman are
immediately effective and executory.
x x x x
Findings
of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence
are conclusive. Any order, directive or
decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not
more than one month's salary shall be final and unappealable.
x x x x
[11]
Section 7. Finality of decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the
charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure
or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to
one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other
cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days
from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or
petition for certiorari shall have been filed by him as prescribed in Section
27 of RA 6770.
[12] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[13]
[14]
G.R. No. 155320,
[15]
[16]
[17]
See
[18] Office of the Ombudsman v.
[19]
Rep. Act No. 6770, Sec. 27.
[20] Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil. 158,
167 (2003).
[21] Republic v. Francisco, G.R. No. 163089,
[22] Rollo, pp. 41-42.
[23] Dajao v. Lluch, 429 Phil. 620, 626 (2002).
[24] Farolan v. Solmac Marketing Corporation,
G.R. No. 83589, March 13, 1991, 195 SCRA 168, 177-178.