10/2/2016

G.R.No.172729

THIRDDIVISION

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,G.R.No.172729
representedbyHON.SIMEONV.
MARCELO,inhiscapacityasformer
OMBUDSMANandHON.PRIMOC.
MIRO,inhiscapacityasDeputy
Ombudsman,Visayas,
Petitioners,Present:
versusYnaresSantiago,J.(Chairperson),
AustriaMartinez,
ChicoNazario,and
Nachura,JJ.
WOODROWCANASTILLOand
ALLANG.VALENCIANO,Promulgated:
Respondents.
June8,2007
xx

DECISION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

[1]
[2]
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the January 21, 2005 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 76625 which reversed and set aside the June 27, 2002
[3]
Decision of the Office of the OmbudsmanVisayas in OMBVISADM 20000200 finding
[4]
respondents guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and its May 5, 2006 Resolution denying
petitionersmotionforreconsideration.

On August 6, 1996, the Commission on Audit8 conducted an ocular inspection in the

[5]
provinceofNorthernSamarandfoundsixunitsofheavyequipment leftidleandunattendedin
theislandmunicipalityofSanAntonio.Theseequipmentunitswereallegedlyleftinaplaceopento
thesalineseabreezeandseavaporcausingittodeteriorateandbecomeunserviceable.Furthermore,
the said equipment units were not booked up or included in the Inventory Report as of April 1,
[6]
1999.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/172729.htm

1/7

10/2/2016

G.R.No.172729

Consequently, an administrative complaint was filed before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas charging respondents Woodrow Canastillo and Allan G. Valenciano,
ProvincialEngineerandGeneralServicesOfficerofNorthernSamar,respectively,withneglectof
dutyforfailuretoexercisediligenceinthecareandcustodyoverthesaidunitsofheavyequipment.

Respondentsallegedthattheequipmentunitswereoldbutstillserviceablewhenacquiredby
theprovinceintheearly80s.In1991,theequipmentunitswerebroughttoSanAntoniotobeused
fortherepair,rehabilitationandconstructionofitsprovincialandbarangayroads.Afterthreeyears,
theequipmentunits,exceptforonepayloaderanddumptruck,deterioratedbeyondeconomicrepair
[7]
andwerereportedtoCOA8fortheirdisposal.

OnJune27,2002, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered its Decision finding respondents
guiltyofSimpleNeglectofDuty,towit:

Thefactssetforthshowthatthesubjectheavyequipmentswerealreadyunserviceableatthe
time the COA8 conducted an ocular inspection of the same on August6,1996. The contention of
respondentsisbelievedmeritorious,forwhilesubjectheavyequipmentdeterioratedbeyondeconomic
repair, but the same is attributable to the fact that they were second hand when acquired by the
Provincial Government in the early eighties, not to mention the fact that they had been used in the
dailymaintenanceoftheroadsoftheprovinceforabout1014years,beyondtheirserviceablelife.

The undersigned is convinced that respondents did endeavor to dispose of said heavy
equipmentsafterfindingthatthesamecouldnolongerbeoffurtherusetotheprovince.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
equipmentsinordertoobviatefurtherdeteriorationofthesame,pendingapprovalbyCOA8oftheir
requestfortheirdisposal.Evidently,theequipmentswerejustleftinaplaceopentosalineseabreeze
and sea vapor, causing the same to deteriorate further. Had there been careful and efficient
supervisionanddiligentactiononthepartofrespondentsforthesafekeepingandproperdisposition
of said equipments, the conditions depicted in the report of COA8 could have been averted or
remedied and the resulting perception of prejudice to the public interest could have been avoided.
This,respondentsfailedtodoandhence,theymustbeartheconsequenceoftheirneglect.

Wherefore, respondents Woodrow Canastillo and Allan G. Valenciano are found guilty of
SimpleNeglectofDutyforwhichtheyareherebyfinedequivalenttotheirone(1)monthspayand
warnedthatcommissionbythemofasimilaroffensewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

[8]
SOORDERED.

RespondentsappealedthedecisionbeforetheCourtofAppealswhichreversedthedecision
[9]
of the Office of the Ombudsman ruling that the finding of neglect of duty lacks substantial
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/172729.htm

2/7

10/2/2016

G.R.No.172729

evidence and that respondents exercised due diligence in utilizing all measures and resources
availabletotheminsupervisingthecondition,stateanduseoftheequipment.

PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration,however,samewasdeniedhence,theinstant
petition.

PetitionercontendsthattheassailedDecisionoftheOmbudsmanimposingthepenaltyoffine
equivalenttoonemonthsalaryisfinalandunappealable,hence,immediatelyexecutorypursuantto
[10]
Section27
ofRepublicActNo.6770(RA6770),otherwiseknownasTheOmbudsmanActof
[11]
1989andSection7,
RuleIIIofAdministrativeOrderNo.7ortheTheRulesofProcedureofthe
OfficeoftheOmbudsman.Assuch,theCourtofAppealshadnoappellatejurisdictiontoreview,
rectifyorreversethesame.

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
reportoftheAuditTeamandontheocularinspectionitconducted.Further,therespondentsdidnot
controvertthefindingsthattheequipmentunitswerevirtuallyabandonedandundulyexposedtothe
[12]
damagingeffectsofthesalineseabreezeandseavapor.

Indeed,Section27ofRA6770providesthatanyorder,directive,ordecisionoftheOfficeof
theOmbudsmanimposingthepenaltyofpubliccensureorreprimand,andsuspensionofnotmore
thanonemonth'ssalary,shallbefinalandunappealable.Intheinstantcase,thepenaltyimposed
bytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanafterfindinghereinrespondentsguiltyofsimpleneglectofduty
[13]
[14]
wasfineequivalenttotheirone(1)monthspay.
FollowingourrulinginHerrerav.Bohol,
thepenaltyimposeduponrespondents,whichisfineequivalenttoone(1)monthsalary,isincluded
inthephrasesuspensionofnotmorethanonemonthssalary,thus:

Thereisnopenaltyassuspensionofsalaryinouradministrativelaw,rulesandregulations.Salaries
are simply not suspended. Rather it is the official or employee concerned who is suspended with a
correspondingwithholdingofsalariesfollowingtheprincipleof"nowork,nopay."Or,anofficialor
employeemaybefinedanamountequivalenttohisorhermonthlysalaryaspenaltywithoutan
accompanyingsuspensionfromwork.

In truth, the Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to its authority to promulgate rules to
implementR.A.No.6770,hasclarifiedthisambiguityofitsSec.27.Sec.7,RuleIIIofitsRulesof
Procedure,AdministrativeOrderNo.7,provides,viz:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/172729.htm

3/7

10/2/2016

G.R.No.172729

Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction

wherethepenaltyimposedispubliccensureorreprimand,suspensionofnotmorethan
onemonth,orafineequivalenttoonemonthsalary,thedecisionshallbefinaland
[15]
unappealablexxxx(Emphasissupplied.)

However,itisalsosettledthatdecisionsofadministrativeagencieswhicharedeclaredfinal
andunappealablebylawarestillsubjecttojudicialreviewiftheyfailthetestofarbitrariness,or
uponproofofgrossabuseofdiscretion,fraudorerroroflaw.Whensuchadministrativeorquasi
judicialbodiesgrosslymisappreciateevidenceofsuchnatureastocompelacontraryconclusion,
[16]
theCourtwillnothesitatetoreversethefactualfindings.

In the instant case, respondents recourse from the adverse decision of the Office of the
Ombudsmanwouldhavebeentofileapetitionforcertiorari,insteadofapetitionforreviewunder
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
[17]
Court.

The Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman on respondents administrative liability was
primarilybasedontheauditreportandocularinspectionconductedbytheCOA8findingthatthe
equipment units were left in a place open to saline sea breeze and sea vapor causing it to
deterioratefurther.

Itiswellsettledthatonlysubstantialevidenceisrequiredtosustainafindingofguiltinan
[18]
administrativecase,
andfindingsoffactoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanareconclusivewhen
[19]
supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
[20]
reasonablemightconceivablyopineotherwise.

In the instant case, we find that a review of the factual findings of the Office of the
Ombudsman is necessary. When administrative or quasijudicial bodies grossly misappreciate
evidenceofsuchnatureastocompelacontraryconclusion,theCourtwillnothesitatetoreverseits
[21]
factual findings.
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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/172729.htm

4/7

10/2/2016

G.R.No.172729

prudencerequiredoftheminthecareandcustodyofthesubjectequipment.Infact,theOfficeof
theOmbudsmanstatedinitsDecisionthatthecontentionofrespondentswasmeritoriousthatthe
unserviceabilityanddeteriorationbeyondeconomicrepairoftheequipmentunitswereattributable
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 1014 years, which is way beyond their
serviceablelife.

Afterfindingtheequipmentunitsuseless,respondentsstillexertedeffortstomaximizetheir
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
preparedandsubmittedinJuly1994anInventoryandInspectionReportofUnserviceableProperty
and other documents necessary to effect its disposal through public auction however, it was not
[22]
acteduponbyCOAuntil1996.

Thefactsclearlyshowthatrespondentsexercisedduecareanddiligenceinthecustodyand
dispositionoftheunserviceableequipment,thusnegatingtheimputationofsimpleneglectofduty
which,asdefined,isthefailureofanemployeetogiveproperattentiontoataskexpectedofhim,
[23]
signifyingdisregardofadutyresultingfromcarelessnessorindifference.

Inthedischargeofhisduties,apublicofficeristousethatprudence,caution,andattention
[24]
which careful men use in the management of their affairs.
Under the circumstances, there is
nothingmorethatrespondentscandotoprotectandpreservethewornoutanduselessequipment
but to dispose of the same in the way they deem best. The diligence and prudence exercised by
respondentsinmaximizingtheutilityoftheequipmentnegateanyimputationofneglectofduty.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
SPNo.76625reversingtheDecisionoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmaninOMBVISADM2000
0200findingrespondentsguiltyofSimpleNeglectofDutyanditsResolutiondenyingpetitioners
motionforreconsideration,areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/172729.htm

5/7

10/2/2016

G.R.No.172729

WECONCUR:

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

Iattestthattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,it
isherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/172729.htm

6/7

10/2/2016

G.R.No.172729

[1]
Rollo,pp.1127.
[2]
Id.at3238.PennedbyAssociateJusticePampioA.AbarintosandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesMercedesGozoDadoleand
VicenteL.Yap.
[3]
Id.at4143.
[4]
Id.at3940.PennedbyAssociateJusticePampioA.AbarintosandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesIsaiasP.DicdicanandVicenteL.
Yap.
[5]
Namely:1)GraderMitsubushi,Md1LG2H2)RoadRoler,Ingerso11Rand,Md1SP48DD3)Payloader,KomatsuWA20014)
DumpTruck,ISUZUTDJ505)DumpTruck,ISUZUTDJ50,and6)CrawlerTractor,Komatzu.
[6]
Rollo,p.41.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.at4143.
[9]
Id.at63.
[10]
Section 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. (1) All provisionary orders at the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately
effectiveandexecutory.
xxxx
FindingsoffactbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanwhensupportedbysubstantialevidenceareconclusive.Anyorder,directiveor
decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month's salary shall be final and
unappealable.
xxxx
[11]
Section7.Finalityofdecision.Wheretherespondentisabsolvedofthecharge,andincaseofconvictionwherethepenaltyimposed
ispubliccensureorreprimand,suspensionofnotmorethanonemonth,orafineequivalenttoonemonthsalary,thedecisionshallbefinal
and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the
respondent,unlessamotionforreconsiderationorpetitionforcertiorarishallhavebeenfiledbyhimasprescribedinSection27ofRA
6770.
[12]
Rollo,pp.2122.
[13]
Id.at43.
[14]
G.R.No.155320,February5,2004,422SCRA282.
[15]
Id.at285286.
[16]
Id.
[17]
SeeFloresv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,437Phil.684,690(2002).Indeterminingthenatureofanaction,itisnotthecaptionbutthe
avermentsinthepetitionandthecharacterofthereliefsoughtthatarecontrolling.
[18]
OfficeoftheOmbudsmanv.Santos,G.R.No.166116,March31,2006,486SCRA463,470.
[19]
Rep.ActNo.6770,Sec.27.
[20]
Montemayorv.Bundalian,453Phil.158,167(2003).
[21]
Republicv.Francisco,G.R.No.163089,December6,2006.
[22]
Rollo,pp.4142.
[23]
Dajaov.Lluch,429Phil.620,626(2002).
[24]
Farolanv.SolmacMarketingCorporation,G.R.No.83589,March13,1991,195SCRA168,177178.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/172729.htm

7/7