Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ernesto A. Fajardo was employed by the Bureau of Customs (BOC). In May 2002, a COA State Auditor was directed to conduct a post-audit of collections. The audit revealed that petitioner had an unremitted collection from sales of accountable forms and stamps amounting to ₱20,118,355.00 for January-October 2002. Further investigation indicated a total unremitted amount of ₱53,214,258.00 from January 2000 to October 2002, later corrected to ₱53,658,371.00. Procedural History: On January 6, 2003, the BOC Commissioner requested an NBI investigation. On January 10, 2003, an Information for Plunder was filed against petitioner. On February 11, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman directed petitioner to file a counter-affidavit. Petitioner denied the accusations, claiming no under-remittance and assailing the validity of the audit report. On May 3, 2005, the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Ombudsman's decision on April 27, 2006, finding substantial evidence to support the guilt of petitioner. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He raised issues concerning the competency of evidence, grave abuse of discretion by the CA in not considering vital evidence, the CA's reliance on documents not formally offered, and the Ombudsman's power to dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether competent evidence was presented before the Office of the Ombudsman to establish dishonesty and grave misconduct on the part of petitioner. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to consider vital evidence regarding the documentary stamp metered machine and the testimony of State Auditor Nancy Marco. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to consider the findings of the trial court in the related criminal case regarding the evidence of guilt. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on documents not introduced or offered in evidence before the Office of the Ombudsman. Whether the Ombudsman can directly dismiss petitioner from government service.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated April 27, 2006, and the Resolution dated June 28, 2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91021 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of competent evidence for dishonesty and grave misconduct: The Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Ombudsman's finding of guilt. The audit report revealed a shortfall of ₱53,658,371.00 in petitioner's remittances. This figure was derived by deducting the total amount remitted from the total "audit sales" of accountable forms, calculated in accordance with Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 19-77. The discrepancy between "audit sales" and actual remittances was deemed sufficient evidence of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that administrative proceedings only require substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the CA's alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding vital evidence: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner's claims regarding the documentary stamp metered machine and the alleged lack of expertise of State Auditor Marco were not substantiated by clear and convincing proof. The Court noted that the discrepancy between "audit sales" and actual remittances did not prove petitioner's innocence; rather, it suggested either selling forms without stamps (violating CMO No. 19-77) or using an unauthorized machine. The Court reiterated that findings of fact by the Ombudsman, affirmed by the CA, are conclusive unless there is grave abuse of discretion. On the CA's alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding the trial court's findings in the criminal case: The Court ruled that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Order granting bail in the criminal case was not presented as evidence before the Ombudsman or the CA. Furthermore, administrative cases are independent of criminal proceedings, and the Ombudsman and CA are not bound by the RTC's findings, especially since the bail order only resolved the entitlement to bail and not the merits of the case. On the CA's alleged reliance on documents not formally offered: The Court found this allegation to be without merit. Petitioner failed to present evidence to prove that the audit report was not lawfully introduced. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by public officers was not overturned. Moreover, the audit report was not the sole basis for dismissal; affidavits and testimonies from the bail hearing were also considered. The COA final audit report confirmed the contents of the initial audit memorandum. On the Ombudsman's power to directly dismiss petitioner: The Court affirmed that the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose administrative liability, not merely recommend it. This power is well-settled and is supported by jurisprudence. The fact that non-compliance with the Ombudsman's order to penalize an erring official is a ground for disciplinary action indicates that the Ombudsman's directives are mandatory within the bounds of the law.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman has the power to directly dismiss erring public officials or employees, and its findings of guilt in administrative cases, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court absent grave abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence is sufficient to prove dishonesty and grave misconduct in administrative proceedings.