THIRD
DIVISION
|
LEODEGARIO R. BASCOS, JR. and ELEAZAR
B. PAGALILAUAN, Petitioners, - versus
- ENGR. JOSE B. TAGANAHAN and OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 180666 Present: PUNO, C.J.,* QUISUMBING,** AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
Acting Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February 18, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the Decision[2]
dated
The
antecedents of the case, both factual and procedural, are set forth hereunder.
The
Contract
On 14
December 2000, a Contract for the
Supply, Delivery, Installation and Commissioning of Two (2) Units [of] 2.5 Tons
Per Hour Rice Mill[s][6] (Contract)
was entered into by the National Food Authority (NFA), represented by Acting
Administrator Domingo F. Panganiban, as purchaser, and Alheed International
Trading Corporation (Alheed Corp.), represented by its President Herculano C.
Co, Jr., as supplier.
The Contract
provided, inter alia, that Alheed Corp.
shall supply, deliver, install, test and commission two units of rice mills,
including their standard tools, equipment and accessories, for a total contract
price of P19,398,042.00. Seventy
percent (70%) of the contract price shall be paid by the NFA upon the delivery
of the equipment at the site, and the submission of delivery receipt(s)/original
invoice(s) and of proof of payment of customs duties; while the remaining
thirty percent (30%) shall be paid after the installation, testing, and
commissioning of the equipment, and the issuance by the appropriate NFA Field
Office of a Certificate of Final
Acceptance upon the submission by Alheed Corp. of other documents which may
be required. The requirements which
Alheed Corp. must submit, before the appropriate NFA Field Office shall issue
the Certificate of Final Acceptance, were identified as follows:
(1)
Certificate of Final Acceptance by the
Technical Services Directorate [TSD][7];
(2)
Certificate of conformity to specifications
and inspection report by the TSD Project Engineer at the site;
(3)
Guarantee
Bond posted by Alheed International Trading Corporation in favor of NFA in the
amount equivalent to 10% of the Contract Price with a statement under oath of
full payment of premium which shall be effective within a period of one year
from the final acceptance.
The
payments to be made in favor of Alheed Corp. under the Contract shall be
subject to NFA accounting and auditing rules and regulations.
The Contract
further provided that the labor materials, equipment, delivery and installation
at the site, as well as the testing and commissioning of the rice mills, shall
be undertaken by Alheed Corp. at its own account. Commissioning
was defined therein as the completion of the mechanical and electrical systems
of the rice mills, tested with and without load at the appropriate NFA Field
Office. The testing with load shall be
conducted for at least eight hours of continuous operation for three times.
Special
provisions were also incorporated in the Contract. One of these special
provisions stated that no substitution of materials or equipment including
brand and type shall be made, unless otherwise approved in writing by the purchaser
NFA, as represented by its Administrator; and another which provided that the
duly authorized representative of the purchaser may, at any time, inspect the
basic unit as well as the progress of the installation. Said inspection shall not be interpreted as
exempting or diminishing the liability of the supplier Alheed Corp. as provided
in the Contract.
Per the Contract, the two rice mills
were initially set to be supplied and installed by Alheed Corp. at the NFA
grain centers that were being constructed at Talavera, Nueva Ecija and
Sablayan, Mindoro Occidental. Instead,
the rice mills were eventually installed at
The
Complaint-Affidavit
On 23
August 2002, private respondent Jose B. Taganahan (Taganahan), an Engineer-III (with
Salary Grade 19) at the TSD of NFA, filed a Complaint-Affidavit[8]
with the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the allegedly anomalous
acceptance and full payment of the two rice mills installed in San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro and in Pili, Camarines Sur.
The Complaint-Affidavit charged (1) herein petitioner Bascos, in his
capacity as Director of the TSD (Salary Grade
26); (2) herein petitioner Pagalilauan, in his capacity as the Chief Grains
Operations Officer (Salary Grade 24) of the NFA; (3) Tomas R. Escarez
(Escarez), in his capacity as Provincial Manager (Salary Grade 24) of the NFA
for the province of Occidental Mindoro; and (4) Alheed Corp., represented by
its President Heculano C. Co, Jr., with Falsification of Public Documents,
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), violation
of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees), and Perjury.
Taganahan related that from 30 June
to
The above violations notwithstanding,
petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan still submitted to the NFA Accounting
Department on
a) Certificate of Inspection[11]
dated
b) Accomplishment Report[12]
dated
c) Certificate of Conformity to Specifications[13]
dated
d) Letter[14]
of [Herculano C. Co, Jr.], dated
Attached to
the voucher were a Certificate of Complete Installation, Commissioning and
Final Acceptance,[15]
dated
Taganahan claimed
that the Certification dated 20 July 2001 by Escarez was spurious considering
that the latter even sent a radio message[16]
to petitioner Bascos on 4 July 2001, stating that the test milling of the rice
mill in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro could not proceed as scheduled because the
electric generator malfunctioned during the test run. Subsequently, Escarez sent a fax message,
dated
Taganahan asserted
that the findings in his report were bolstered by an audit report IAS No. H-006[17]
dated
Insofar as the other rice mill was concerned,
Taganahan asseverated that petitioner Pagalilauan inveigled TSD Engineers Bobby
Quilit and James Vincent Del Valle to sign the pre-dated certifications of the
supposedly complete installation of the rice mill in Pili, Camarines Sur and
its conformity to NFA specifications.
Subsequently, the IAS submitted another audit
report, IAS No. A-002 dated
On account
of the allegations in Taganahan’s Complaint-Affidavit, an administrative case
for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, docketed as OMB-C-A-02-0379-I,[19]
was filed against petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan, as well as Escarez.
Decision of
the Office of the Ombudsman
On
Initially, this Office finds the absence of enough
proof to hold the herein respondents responsible for the irregularities
committed in the installation of the [rice mill] at Pili, Camarines
Viewed therewith, this Office in the instant decision
shall deal solely on the alleged irregularities committed in the execution of
the project for the installation of [the rice mill] at
Significantly, [herein petitioner] Bascos is being
held liable herein for the issuance of the Certificate of Conformity to
Specifications on June 14, 2001, attesting to the 100% delivery and
installation of the [rice mill] as of June 5, 2001, while [herein petitioner]
Pagalilauan for his Certificate of Inspection, dated June 11, 2001, certifying
to the supply, delivery, installation and commissioning of the [rice mill], and
its compliance with the contract specifications, as per the inspection
conducted on June 9, 2001, and finally, Escarez for having signed the
Certificate of Complete Installation, Commissioning and Final Acceptance, dated
July 20, 2001, of Acting Plant Engineer Agosto Quijano in the “Noted” portion
thereof.
Ruling on this case, records revealed that
[petitioners] Bascos and Pagalilauan in their issuances committed falsification
by causing it to appear in their individual certifications that the newly
installed [rice mill] at the NFA San Jose Office in issue had been inspected
and found in conformity with the NFA approved specifications, knowing fully
(sic) well that the supplier, Alheed Corporation, violated certain provisions
of the contract and/or committed deviations thereof without the approval of the
NFA Administrator.[21] (Emphasis ours.)
The Office of the Ombudsman noted more
specifically the transgressions committed by petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan:
The deficiencies/defects in the project were made
known to [herein petitioner] Bascos prior to the release of the full payment to
Alheed Corporation on
The letter
of advise (sic), dated July 16, 2001, of [petitioner] Bascos to Alheed
Corporation, informing the latter of the alleged installation of undersized
wiring in the [rice mill] subject hereof, and Alheed Corporation’s reply-letter
thereto of July 17, 2001, explicitly revealed the absence of any correction
made therein. Let it be noted that Alheed
Corporation in the said letter merely took upon itself the responsibility to
answer for any damage which maybe (sic) caused by the alleged undersized
wiring. Thus, [the same] can be treated
as an express admission of defiance to the contract.
Moreover,
the admission (sic) of [herein petitioners] Bascos and Pagalilauan in their counter-affidavits
of non-compliance with the test milling requirement for at least eight (8)
hours continuous operation for three (3) times as provided in the contract
tacitly established the fact that they have full knowledge of the deviations
from the NFA approved specifications.
x x x
x
Emphasis
is made on the fact that the issuance of the Certificate of Conformity to
Specification presupposes actual inspection and testing of the equipment. In the case at bar[,] the discovery of the
defects in the contested installation after the issuance thereof clearly
revealed absence of actual inspection of the project. Considering the same, therefore, the
issuances of [petitioner] Bascos, dated
[Petitioner]
Pagalilauan’s administrative liability herein was even bolstered by the
established fact that he acted in two (2) capacities in the preparation and
submission of the required documents to facilitate the payment to Alheed
Corporation, i.e., as the TSD Engineer in the Certificate of Inspection and as
Project Manager in the report on the project completion, the authority to act
as such not having been entrenched with sufficient proofs (sic).
Further
substantiating the foregoing observation is the undisputed fact that while it
is true that the IAS Report No. H-006, dated September 6, 2001, of the NFA
Internal Audit Services stating certain deficiencies and/or defects in the
implementation of the project in question had been answered by [petitioner]
Bascos in his Memorandum to the NFA Administrator, dated November 22, 2001,
however, (sic) the subsequent report of the same unit containing the same observations
showed that the justifications of respondent Bascos therein did not
satisfactorily explain the reported irregularities committed in the execution
of the project. Exemplifying the same
are the IAS findings contained in its second report, coded as IAS Report No.
A-002, dated
“FINDINGS
NON-CONFORMITY WITH SOP GS-PD15
1. Purchase of two units rice mill was not
referred to IAS for Technical Inspections.
x x x x
Under its Implementing Guidelines, No. 22 of the
General Policies of SOPGS-PD15 (sic) states that:
“All purchases/fabrication shall be subject to
technical inspection by the Technical Inspection Unit, Internal Audit Services
(TIU-IAS) and final acceptance by the requisitioning office.”
The contract for the purchase of two units rice mills
was consummated and fully paid even without the technical inspection by the
[TIU-IAS] in violation of the foregoing provision.
x x x x
IAS position is buttressed by the fact that the
contract states that all payments shall be subject to NFA accounting and
auditing procedures and as such should conform to the expense (sic) mandate of
SOP GS-PD15.
x x x x
COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
1. Non-delivery of One (1) Unit Bucket
Elevator 140/5m. During the inspection,
it was noticed that three (3) units [were] installed at the site. However, when cross checked with the
breakdown of the bid at Alhud (sic), item No. 26 Bucket Elevator 140/5m,
[showed] an original quantity of four (4) units. Apparently, there was an erasure appearing in
the face of the document reflecting therein three (3) units instead of 4
without the corresponding reduction as to the amount.
x x x x
3. Change in the dimensions of the Bran Room
The Bran Room dimensions were
changed from twelve (12) meters by six (6) meters to ten (10) meters by five
(5) meters which change was only approved by the TSD Director and not by the
proper approving authority, the Administrator.
Likewise, a corresponding reduction in cost should be made.
4. Use of Undersized Wiring
1. [It] was also found out that the wire used
for the 40 HP motor of mist polisher CB-2EB and whitener CDE-40A were
undersized x x x.
x x x x
6. Replacement of One (1) Unit
Bran Sieve without prior approval of the Administrator:
TSD approved the request of
the supplier to replace the Bran Sieve with Dust Filter Cyclone with Exhauster,
which according to them the replacement will improve the efficiency of the rice
mill. However, it did not seek prior
approval from the Administrator.
7. Non-Compliance with the training requirement
under the contract.
Inspection revealed that the
required training of NFA concerned personnel has not been undertaken by the
supplier.
x x x x
11. Non-Conformity with the Grading Section
Specification.
x x x x
Under NFA Specifications, the
grading of rice is by indented cylinder.
Two indented cylinder grades is (sic) mounted [atop] the grading
tank. x x x.
Based in the as-built plan,
there is only one indented cylinder.”
x x x x
The abovestated (sic), IAS’s findings appeared to be
unrefuted for failure of [petitioners] Bascos and Pagalilauan to either
sufficiently controvert the same or justify the deficiencies found in the
project. Hence, it (sic) stand.[22]
According to the Office of the Ombudsman, the actuations of
petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan, as described above, constituted dishonesty:
Before making a pronouncement on the liability of the
[petitioners], it is important to make a clear definition of Dishonesty as an administrative
offense. Section 8 of Presidential
Decree No. 971, adopted by the Civil Service Commission [CSC] in its Resolution
No. 97-0799 of
Premised on the observations of this Office and the
undisputed findings of the NFA Internal Audit Services, this Office concludes
that [herein petitioners] Bascos and Pagalilauan by issuing the Certificate of
Conformity with the Specifications and Certificate of Inspection, respectively,
to facilitate the full payment of the contract amount to Alheed Corporation,
despite full knowledge of lack of actual inspection conducted on the equipment
and its non-conformity with the contract specifications, are liable for
Dishonesty. x x x.[23]
However, as regards the alleged
liability of Escarez, the Office of the Ombudsman adjudged:
Lastly, on the issuance of the Certificate of Complete
Installation, Commissioning and Final Acceptance, dated July 20, 2001 by Plant
Engineer Agosto Quijano, this Office is of the considered view that the signing
of [Escarez] in the “Noted” portion thereof merely serves as an acknowledgment
of the notice given to him on the development in the project. The disputed certification can speak for
itself that it was done and issued by another.
Good faith can likewise be appreciated in his favor as evidenced by his
subsequent acts of informing all concerned, including [herein petitioner]
Bascos and Alheed Corporation, on the new schedule for the commissioning of the
[rice mill]. Thus, negating intent to
conceal the truth. Based thereon, the
exoneration of [Escarez] herein is warranted.[24]
In the end,
the Office of the Ombudsman decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding [herein
petitioners] TSD Director LEODEGARIO R. BASCOS, JR. and Grains Operations
Officer ELEAZAR B. PAGALILAUAN, both of the National Food Authority, GUILTY OF
DISHONESTY, they should be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE,
pursuant to Section 52 (A) (1) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases.
Finding [Provincial Manager] TOMAS R. ESCAREZ of NFA
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, to be not guilty of the offense charged, the
complaint against him is, as it is hereby, DISMISSED.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of
the Administrator of the National Food Authority for proper implementation upon
finality hereof.[25] (Emphasis ours.)
Petitioners
filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation,[26]
but the same was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman in an Order[27]
dated
Petitioners then filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review[28] under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, contesting the judgment against them of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-02-0379-I. Their Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92.
In a Resolution[29]
dated
On 6 February 2006, petitioner Pagalilauan
filed a Motion for Reconsideration[30] of
the 18 January 2006 Resolution, explaining that his co-petitioner Bascos had
gone to the United States of America in the middle of November 2005 to undergo
medical check-up and treatment. Petitioner
Bascos had not returned since then. When
Pagalilauan received, on
In a Resolution[31]
dated 15 February 2006, the Court of Appeals ordered petitioner Pagalilauan to
submit, within fifteen (15) days from notice, a written authorization duly
executed by petitioner Bascos, empowering petitioner Pagalilauan to execute the
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in the Petition on Bascos’s
behalf. The Court of Appeals further
required that petitioner Bascos’ written authorization be duly authenticated by
the proper consular officer of
On
Resultantly, in an Order[33]
dated
Procedurally, the Court of Appeals initially
declared that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies before
filing their Petition under Rule 43.
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6770[34] states
that the Ombudsman has the power of control and supervision over the Offices of
the Ombudsmen. Such being the case, the Decision dated
The Court of Appeals also ruled that
the
Thereupon, on
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman dated July 19, 2005 finding petitioners guilty of Dishonesty under
Civil Service law and implementing rules and penalizing them with dismissal
from service, as well as its Decision dated October 20, 2005 denying herein
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.[35]
In the assailed Resolution[36] dated
Petitioners, thereafter, elevated their
case to us via the instant Petition
for Review on Certiorari, raising the
following issues for our consideration:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN BY SUSTAINING THE UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT, CONTRARY TO LAW AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW DATED
Petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan contend
that it was error for the Court of Appeals to affirm the decision of the Office
of the Ombudsman, which sustained the unsubstantiated allegations of
Taganahan. They believe that the
findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman, regarding the falsity of the Certificate of Conformity to Specifications dated
As regards the ruling of the Court of
Appeals that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking
judicial intervention, petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan argue that they
seasonably filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation
before the Office of the Ombudsman and it was only upon the denial thereof that
they filed their Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of
Appeals. Also, Republic Act No. 6770 and
its implementing rules do not provide that the decision of the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman is appealable to the Ombudsman.
Prefatorily, we agree with
petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan that, contrary to the pronouncement of the
Court of Appeals, they have indeed exhausted their administrative remedies
before they elevated their case to the appellate court, in accordance with the
relevant rules of procedure[38]
of the Office of the Ombudsman. Verily, the
records indicate that when petitioners received the decision of the Office of
the Ombudsman which was unfavorable to them, they correctly filed their Omnibus
Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation. Upon the denial of the said motion,
petitioners instituted a petition under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals.
We now proceed to the substantive
merits of the case. After carefully evaluating
the instant Petition, we find that the vital issue which we must resolve is
whether the administrative liability of the petitioners for dishonesty was
adequately established by substantial evidence.
We
rule in the affirmative.
In
administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is
necessary to establish the case for or against a party. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of
evidence. It is that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion,[39] even if
other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[40]
Elementary is the rule that the findings
of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by
substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when
they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that
a review of factual findings may aptly be made.[41] In reviewing administrative decisions, it is
beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine
the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of
the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence.[42] It is not the function of this Court to
analyze and weigh the parties’ evidence all over again except when there is
serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby
result.[43] Although there are exceptions[44]
to this rule, we find the same to be inapplicable to the instant case.
In the case at bar, the Office of the
Ombudsman pronounced that the liability of petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan
for the administrative offense of dishonesty was proven by substantial evidence.
The Office of the Ombudsman adjudged
that petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan committed misrepresentation when they imprudently
signed the Certificate of Conformity to
Specifications dated 14 June 2001 and the Certificate of Inspection dated 11 June
2001, respectively, only for the matters they attested to therein to be later disproved
and controverted by documents and circumstances that tell an entirely different
story.
The Certificate of
Conformity to Specifications[45]
dated
CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY
TO SPECIFICATIONS
This
is to certify that the Alheed International Trading Corporation have delivered and installed 100% accomplishment
of the 2.5 TPH Rice Mill for NAWACO I, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro on June 5,
2001 per attached accomplishment report no. 2, which was certified and
inspected by the TSD inspector at the site.
This certification is issued for billing
purposes by the Alheed International Trading Corporation.
Certified Correct:
(signed)
LEODEGARIO R. BASCOS, JR.
Director, TSD (Emphasis ours.)
On the other hand, the Certificate of Inspection[46]
dated
CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION
This is to certify that one (1) unit 2.5
TPH Buivanggo [Rice mill] supplied,
delivered, installed and commissioned by Alheed International Trading
Corporation at
This
certification is issued in accordance with the contract provisions, only for
billing purposes.
Issued on
(signed)
ELEAZAR B. PAGALILAUAN
TSD Engineer (Emphasis
ours.)
As pointed out by the Office of the Ombudsman, as early as
After being subsequently apprised of the possible violations
of the Contract and the deviations from the NFA specifications for the rice
mills, petitioners still failed to cause the deferment of the payment of the
remaining 30% of the contract price to Alheed Corp. Instead, petitioners allowed the final payment
to proceed on
Similarly, the Office of the Ombudsman noted that in the
audit report IAS No. H-006[48] dated
On
Moreover, petitioner Bascos,
in his Counter-Affidavit[51]
before the Office of the Ombudsman, neither confirmed nor denied that the
required testing of the rice mill for a period of at
least eight hours of continuous operation for three times was not complied
with. Petitioner Pagalilauan, on the
other hand, admitted in his Counter-Affidavit[52] that the testing
requirement as provided in the Contract with Alheed Corp. was not observed,
but, in place thereof, the evaluation team that conducted the testing allegedly
followed the NFA standard test milling of two hours per batch. Clearly, the actions of the evaluation team
were in clear contravention of the explicit terms of the Contract.
On the basis of the
aforementioned evidence and circumstances, the Office of the Ombudsman ruled,
and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan indeed
committed acts of dishonesty.
As an administrative offense, dishonesty is defined as the
disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness
and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[53] It is the concealment or
distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or
connected with the performance of his duties.[54] Dishonesty
is considered as a grave
offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule
XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292[55]
and Section 52(A)(1), Rule IV of Resolution No. 99-1936.[56]
It is apparent to us that
petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan signed the Certificate of Conformity to
Specifications dated
To make matters worse,
petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan failed to prove that they had exercised due
diligence by investigating the alleged inconsistencies with and ostensible
violations of the provisions of the Contract before facilitating the payment to
Alheed Corp. of the balance of the purchase price for the rice mill. What they could only proffer were belated
justifications for what they try to downplay as trivial deviations from the Contract. Considering the substantial amount of public
funds involved in this Contract, as well as the vital public interest at stake,
petitioners as public officials should have exercised more good sense in the
performance of their functions in this case.
Public service requires utmost
integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the
highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution
mandates the principle that a public office is a public trust; and all public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[58]
In fine, the confluence
of the foregoing circumstances leads to the inevitable conclusion that
petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan, in signing certifications that contained untruthful
statements, were indeed guilty of acts of dishonesty in the exercise of their
public functions, thus, warranting their dismissal from the service in
accordance with Section
52(A)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition
for Review is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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.
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
Acting 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
** Per Special Order No. 564, dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 25-42.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S. E. Veloso, concurring; rollo, pp. 43-66.
[3] Rollo, p. 67.
[4]
[5]
[6] Records, pp. 128-133.
[7] In other parts of the records, the Technical Service Directorate of the NFA was referred to as the Technical Services Department.
[8] Rollo, pp. 68-81.
[9] Records, pp. 16-19.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] CA rollo, pp. 111-112.
[18] Records, pp. 50-55.
[19] A criminal case for Falsification and Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Rep. Act No. 3019), docketed as OMB-C-C-02-0552-I, was likewise filed against petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan, Escarez and Herculano C. Co, Jr., the President of Alheed Corp.
[20] Rollo, pp. 120-149.
[21] Records, pp. 140-141.
[22]
[23] Rollo, pp. 146-147.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] CA rollo, pp. 356-357.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] The Ombudsman Act of 1989. Section 11 thereof provides:
Sec. 11. Structural Organization. - The authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman and for the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the Ombudsman, who shall have supervision and control of the said Office.
[35] Rollo, p. 65.
[36]
[37] CA rollo, pp. 593-606.
[38]
Sections 7 and 8, Rule III of
the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Administrative Order No.
07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, dated
Section
7. Finality and execution 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, executory and unappealable.
In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
x x x x
Section 8. Motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation: Grounds- Whenever allowable, a motion for
reconsideration or reinvestigation may only be entertained if filed within ten
(10) days from receipt of the decision or order by the party on the basis
of any of the following grounds:
a)
New
evidence had been discovered which materially affects the order, directive or
decision;
b)
Grave errors of facts or laws or serious
irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of
the movant.
Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be allowed, and the Hearing Officer shall resolve the same within five (5) days from the date of submission for resolution.
[39] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 5.
[40] In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Lansang v. Garcia, 149 Phil. 547, 593 (1971).
[41] Bedruz v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 161077, 10 March 2006, 484 SCRA 452, 456, cited in Dadulo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175451, 13 April 2007, 521 SCRA 357, 363.
[42] Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil. 158, 167 (2003), cited in Dadulo v. Court of Appeals, id.
[43] Sesbreño
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101487,
[44] The following are the exceptions, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the findings went beyond the issues of the case or are contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court or the administrative agency; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the pleadings are not disputed; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties were manifestly overlooked, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
[45] Records, p. 34.
[46]
[47] CA rollo, pp. 399-401.
[48]
[49] Records, pp. 50-53.
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53] Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Rilloraza, 412 Phil. 114, 133 (2001).
[54] Alfonso v. Office of the
President, G.R. No. 150091,
[55] The Administrative Code of 1987.
[56] REVISED UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. The relevant provision reads:
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
1. Dishonesty
1st offense – Dismissal
[57] Petitioner’s Memorandum, rollo, pp. 354-370.
[58] Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.