Ombudsman v. De Zosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Sangguniang Bayan of Kawit, Cavite authorized the mayor to sell municipal properties, including Tax Declaration (TD) Nos. 9761-A, 9762-A, and 9763-A (subject lands). The Municipal Appraisal Board (MAB) of Kawit, Cavite, through MAB-Resolution No. 3-97, decreased the assessed fair market value of the subject lands from ₱700.00 per square meter (sq. m.) to ₱500.00 per sq. m. Lot No. 4431, a parcel covered by TD No. 9763-A, was auctioned and awarded to FJI Property Developers, Inc. (FJI) for ₱123,123,123.00. A Commission on Audit (COA) report later found that the proper fair market value should have been ₱878.26 per sq. m., concluding that the Municipality of Kawit, Cavite suffered undue injury amounting to ₱92,129,762.12. Procedural History: The Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against the members of the MAB, including respondents Avelino De Zosa and Bartolome Dela Cruz. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (OMB-Luzon) found respondents guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The OMB-Luzon cited the Office of the Ombudsman's ruling in the criminal case, which found that the respondents' acts caused undue injury to the government due to the lowered valuation. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied. Aggrieved, they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the OMB-Luzon ruling, exonerating respondents from administrative liability. The CA held that there was no substantial evidence to support findings of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of procedures. The CA noted that the MAB-Resolution No. 3-97 merely reflected the valuation previously approved by the Cavite Provincial Assessment Board and that the OMB-Luzon failed to specify the violated rule. The Office of the Ombudsman, dissatisfied, filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly absolved respondents from administrative liability for Grave Misconduct.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 25, 2012 and the Resolution dated January 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117355 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Misconduct: The Court held that substantial evidence is required in administrative cases, and such evidence must be adequate to support a conclusion. The Court found that the records were bereft of any showing that respondents wrongfully intended to transgress any established rule with corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules when they approved MAB-Resolution No. 3-97. The Court agreed with the CA that the passage of MAB Resolution No. 3-97 was done to maintain a uniform assessment of properties with similar attributes within the municipality, pursuant to Resolution No. 10-96 of the Cavite Provincial Assessment Board. As there were ample bases for the resolution, the Court concluded that respondents did not commit Grave Misconduct, much less Simple Misconduct. Therefore, the CA correctly exonerated them from administrative liability. The Court reiterated that misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling, implying wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment, and must have a direct relation to the performance of official duties.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that there was no substantial evidence to prove that respondents committed Grave Misconduct, as their actions in approving the re-appraisal of the subject lands were based on an aim to maintain uniform assessment and were supported by a prior resolution of the Provincial Assessment Board, thus not constituting a flagrant disregard of rules or clear intent to violate the law.