Ombudsman v. Cruzabra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Anwar Mohamad Abdurasak and Jovina Tama Mohamad Abdurasak filed a petition with the Register of Deeds of General Santos City to include the name "Ali Mohamad Abdurasak" in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-89456 and T-89458. Without the authority of the Register of Deeds, Asteria E. Cruzabra (respondent), land registration examiner Bienvenido Managuit instructed an office clerk to type the name onto the titles. Datu Sarip E. Andang filed a criminal complaint against respondent for falsification of public documents and usurpation of official functions. Procedural History: Respondent, in her Counter-Affidavit, alleged the intercalation was without her authority and occurred outside her cubicle. She claimed she did not correct it to avoid being charged with falsification and that proper parties should question it. The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao found no probable cause for usurpation but filed an administrative case for simple misconduct. The Ombudsman for Mindanao found respondent liable for neglect of duty and imposed a one-month suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals reversed this, finding respondent not negligent but admonishing her. The Ombudsman filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Petition: The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (petitioner) maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in finding respondent not administratively guilty of neglect of duty and that its order imposing suspension was final, executory, and unappealable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman's finding of neglect of duty against the respondent, considering the substantial evidence presented. Whether the Ombudsman's Order imposing a one-month suspension without pay is final, executory, and unappealable, thereby precluding appellate review by the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of neglect of duty and the Court of Appeals' reversal: The Court held that in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence. The Ombudsman's Order finding respondent liable for neglect of duty was adequately established by substantial evidence. It is the duty of the respondent, as register of deeds, to direct and supervise the activities of her office, and she failed to show she exercised prudence and vigilance. Her admitted inaction upon learning of the irregularity, justified by her fear of being charged with falsification, reflected indifference to her duties and functions. The Court of Appeals' finding that the land registration examiner acted without referring the petition to the respondent for review was noted, but this did not absolve the respondent of her supervisory duty. On the finality and unappealability of the Ombudsman's Order: The Court emphasized that Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of A.O. No. 7 provide that findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Specifically, any order imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month's salary, shall be final and unappealable. Given that the Ombudsman imposed a one-month suspension without pay, this order became final, executory, and unappealable. Consequently, the Court of Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify, or reverse the Ombudsman's Order.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman's finding of neglect of duty, when supported by substantial evidence and imposing a penalty of suspension of not more than one month, is final, executory, and unappealable pursuant to Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as amended.