539 Phil. 433
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The FFIB of the Office of the Ombudsman resolved to investigate the complaint and newspaper report, docketed as CPL 99-2703.
- Negotiated purchase in 1999 of overpriced and expired medicines for the poor amounting to P2.7 million;
- Purchase of 1999 of assorted furnitures and fixtures amounting to P4 million without the benefit of public bidding;
- Purchase of monobloc chairs, tables and tents without the benefit of public bidding and the renting out of the same by the wife of the Municipal Mayor;
- Unlawful removal or transfer of civil service eligibles in the municipal government who are perceived to have opposed the alleged illegal acts of the Municipal Mayor.[2]
(1) Mr. JESUS FRANCISCOA separate subpoena was issued to the provincial auditor directing him to submit certified copies of the decision. The latter informed the agents, however, that he did not have the requested documents. The agents accepted the explanation of the provincial auditor.
Municipal Planning and Development Officer
- Bidding Documents (In re: Garbage Collection, Medicines and Furnitures)
(2) Mr. JERRY MAKALATAN
- Contract to bid
- Notice of Award
- Publication
- Abstract
- List of PBAC members
- Other relevant documents
Municipal Accountant(3) THE PERSONNEL OFFICER
- Financial Statement for the year 1998 to present;
- Journals (Cash Disbursement Journal, Check Disbursement Journal and Cash Receipt Journal); and
- Disbursement Vouchers.
Municipal Hall
- Personal Data Sheets. Service Records and SALN of the following:
- Mayor Jessie B. Castillo
- Salome Esagunde
- Elvira Guerrero
- Councilor Bañas
- Councilor Cortez
- Councilor Ocampo
- Councilor Del Rosario
- Mr. Jerry Makalatan
- Mr. Jesus Francisco[4]
The municipal accountant was reminded that the investigation was confidential and that the documents must be handled pursuant to Section 3, Rule IV of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713.
- Purchase in 1999 of medicines for the poor;
- Purchase in 1999 of assorted furniture and fixtures; and,
- Purchase in 1999 of monobloc chairs, tables and tents.[11]
The officer was similarly reminded of the confidential nature of the investigation.
- Records showing the transfers or movements of personnel within the Municipal Government of Bacoor, Cavite in 1998 and 1999; and
- Records of official travel abroad of the officials and employees of the Municipal Government of Bacoor, Cavite in 1998 and 1999.
On March 28, 2000, the municipal officers' motion to lift their preventive suspension was denied for lack of merit.[15]
- Purchase in 1999 of medicines for the poor;
- Purchase in 1999 of assorted furniture and fixtures; and
- Purchase in 1999 of monobloc chairs, tables and tents.
(1) Records showing the transfers or movements of personnel within the Municipal Government of Bacoor, Cavite in 1998 and 1999;
(2) Records of official travel abroad of the officials and employees of the Municipal Government of Bacoor, Cavite in 1998 and 1999.[14]
For refusing to comply with the subpoena issued by the FFIB, the agents filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Municipal Mayor Jessie B. Castillo, Municipal Treasurer Salome Esagunde, Municipal Accountant Jerry Makalatan, Municipal Personnel Head Emily de Castro and Municipal Planning Development Officer Jesus Francisco. The case was docketed as OMB-ADM-0-00-0112 (OMB-0-00-0261) and was investigated by the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman.
- That the undersigned investigators categorically deny that this investigation is politically motivated. To repeat, the case emanated from our Intelligence and Special Operations Group (ISOG), and we have accordingly acted on their recommendation. The undersigned investigators have no knowledge that the Mayor and some of the concerned officials belong to the same political party. Their records were subpoenaed based on information that these officers traveled abroad without travel authority. Be that as it may, complaints of this nature should be proceeded accordingly based on the merits, and not on the pretext that it is politically motivated;
- That we believe that the act of the Mayor in filing the complaint against the undersigned investigators is to delay the conduct of the investigation, to muddle the issues and to make him appear as a martyr in the eyes of his constituents. The Honorable Mayor appears to a firm believer in the adage, that the "best defense is offense"; x x x[16]
During the investigation, Atty. Eduardo F. Olaveria, Jr. declared that although respondents were subordinates of the Mayor, they were still obliged to comply with the subpoena.
- Whether or not the non-compliance by the respondents of the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated August 24, 1999 constitute Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service? and,
- Whether or not the issuance by respondent Castillo of the Memorandum dated August 10, 1999 to all the Department Heads of Bacoor, Cavite constitute Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service?[19]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents JERRY MAKALATAN, JESUS FRANCISCO and EMILY DE CASTRO are hereby found guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT. Accordingly, they are meted the penalty of ONE (1) MONTH SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY, pursuant to Section 25(2) of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). The instant administrative complaint against respondents JESSIE B. CASTILLO and SALOME ESAGUNDE is hereby DISMISSED.The Ombudsman rejected the municipal officers' defense that they merely obeyed the Mayor's Memoranda. It declared that under Section 15(8) of R.A. No. 6770, they were authorized to serve copies of the public documents listed and described in the subpoena. Respondents were mandated to comply with the subpoena issued by the Office of the Ombudsman through its deputies.
The Mayor, Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, is hereby directed to implement this Decision in accordance with law and to promptly inform this Office of compliance therewith.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Respondents averred that the Ombudsman erred in finding them guilty of simple misconduct and insisted that they acted in good faith. They merely complied with the Memoranda of the Municipal Mayor which prohibited them from furnishing the FFIB agents with copies of the public documents in their custody. To show their good faith, they pleaded to the FFIB agents to talk to the Mayor, but the latter refused. They should not be dealt with administratively and sanctioned for their failure to comply with the subpoena of the FFIB. They maintained that they were in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.
- RESPONDENTS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN RENDERING THE DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 2001 AND ORDER DATED OCTOBER 25, 2001 DEFYING BOTH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE THEREON DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONERS NEVER COMMITTED MISCONDUCT UNDER THE PREMISES;
- THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.[22]
ITHE ONE (1) MONTH SUSPENSION IMPOSED ON RESPONDENTS IS FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE.
IIPETITIONER CORRECTLY ADJUDGED RESPONDENTS GUILTY OF SIMPLE MISCONDUCT.[27]
SEC. 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.From the foregoing provisions, it was held in Lapid v. Court of Appeals[28] that orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one month salary shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the aggrieved party is given the right to appeal within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision; thus, the judgment will become final after the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal, if no appeal is perfected or, an appeal therefrom having been taken.[29] In the instant case, since the penalty imposed upon respondents was "one month suspension without pay" only, as a matter of law, the decision of the Ombudsman is final and unappealable. As held in Herrera v. Bohol,[30] where petitioner therein was likewise found guilty of simple misconduct and suspended for one (1) month without pay, the decision of the Ombudsman can no longer be rectified, much less, reversed.
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. (Underscoring supplied)
The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[38]Under Section 18 of R.A. No. 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered to:
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as it may provide in its rules of procedure, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action;It must be stressed that the Office of the Ombudsman is endowed with a wide latitude of investigating power, virtually free from legislative, executive and judicial instruction.[39] The Ombudsman and his deputies are designated by the Constitution as protectors of the people, who are thus required to act promptly on complaints against public officers of the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof.[40] The general investigation on the Office of the Ombudsman is precisely for the purpose of protecting those against whom a complaint is filed against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution as much as securing the State from useless and expensive trials.[41] Moreover, the reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate the judges' and other fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers.[42]
(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents;x x x x
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.