Diaz v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The General Investigation Bureau A (GIB-A) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a Complaint against personnel of the Veterinary Inspection Board (VIB) of the City of Manila, including petitioner Jose L. Diaz, for violations of R.A. No. 3019, Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, and Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The complaint alleged that petitioner received a Jeep (Yellow, CJ-81 Engine No. 406Y18) on November 18, 1998. On December 29, 1998, a Work Order replaced engine no. 406Y18 with engine no. 13T-4990303, decommissioning the original engine. A Toyota Land Cruiser (plate no. SCB-995) was declared unserviceable on August 31, 1999, per an Inventory and Inspection Report signed by petitioner. Petitioner authorized its withdrawal for disposal on July 9, 2001. However, Supplies Ledger Cards (SLC) revealed gasoline withdrawals for vehicle SCB-995 (4,555 liters from Jan 1999-Dec 2001) and for engine no. 406Y18 (6,500 liters from May 2001-Dec 2003), totaling 11,055 liters over five years. The SLC identified petitioner and Rodrigo R. Reyes as responsible for gasoline withdrawals from Feb 1999 to Mar 2003, despite engine no. 406Y18 being decommissioned and vehicle SCB-995 being declared unserviceable. Petitioner also withdrew gasoline for his personal vehicle (plate no. PPR-691) while receiving a transportation allowance. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, in a Joint Decision dated June 26, 2007, found petitioner and Reyes guilty of dishonesty and dismissed them from the service. Their Joint Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Petitioner and Reyes filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated September 15, 2011, affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling, finding substantial evidence and rejecting claims that the SLC were untrustworthy. The CA also noted that the vehicle SCB-995 was declared unserviceable on August 31, 1999, and petitioner's authorization for its withdrawal belied claims of continued use. The CA denied their Motions for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 22, 2012. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Ombudsman's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh given his 22 years of service and being a first-time offender.
Issue(s)
Whether the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are supported by substantial evidence. Whether the penalty of dismissal from the service is too harsh under the circumstances.
Ruling
The Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated September 15, 2011, and Resolution dated August 22, 2012, in CA-G.R. SP No. 107595 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are supported by substantial evidence: The Court reiterated that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and it is not the Court's function to re-evaluate evidence already passed upon by lower tribunals. The factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are generally accorded great weight and respect, especially when supported by substantial evidence, which means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In this case, the Supplies Ledger Cards (SLC) showed gasoline withdrawals for vehicles that had already been decommissioned or declared unserviceable. Specifically, engine no. 406Y18 was decommissioned in 1998, and the vehicle with plate no. SCB-995 was declared "unserviceable" on August 31, 1999, with petitioner himself authorizing its withdrawal for disposal on July 9, 2001. Furthermore, petitioner admitted that vehicle PPR-691 was his personal vehicle and that he was receiving a transportation allowance during the period of gasoline withdrawals. These circumstances substantially support the Ombudsman's finding of dishonesty. The Court upheld the admissibility and probative value of the SLC, rejecting petitioner's claim that they were prepared with ill motive or constituted hearsay. As public documents, SLCs are considered prima facie evidence of their contents. The trustworthiness of such documents is grounded on the sense of official duty, the penalty for breach of duty, their routine and disinterested origin, and the publicity of records. Petitioner failed to present evidence of malice or spite. Moreover, petitioner's own admission that his office used vehicle SCB-995 and engine no. 406Y18 from 1999 to 2003, as indicated in the SLC, lent credence to these documents. His belated repudiation of his signature on the Inventory and Inspection Report of Unserviceable Property was also disregarded as his signature appeared similar to others and he had previously confirmed the report. The Court found it implausible that the vehicle with plate no. SCB-995 continued to be used after being declared "unserviceable" on August 31, 1999, despite petitioner's claim of an engine replacement. If the engine was replaced after December 1, 1998, it contradicted the declaration of the vehicle as unserviceable on August 31, 1999. Petitioner's inconsistent explanations regarding the continued use of the vehicle, first attributing it to engine replacement and later to "imaginative and innovative technical skills," indicated a lack of forthrightness. The Court found that the documents presented by petitioner to support his claim that the vehicle was auctioned off in August 2004 did not specifically identify the subject vehicle. The Certification of the Chairman of the Appraisal & Disposal Committee and petitioner's August 18, 2004 letter authorizing withdrawal by the winning bidder did not prove that the specific vehicle in question was among those auctioned or withdrawn. On whether the penalty of dismissal from the service is too harsh under the circumstances: The Court affirmed the penalty of dismissal from the service, finding that petitioner committed dishonesty, which is a grave offense. Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, implying a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. The Court emphasized that the supreme penalty of dismissal was warranted due to the nature of the offense and the series of violations committed over several years. Such grave offenses cannot be mitigated by the length of government service or the fact that it was a first offense. The objective of administrative discipline is the improvement of public service and the preservation of public faith and confidence in the government.
Main Doctrine
The factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded great weight and are considered conclusive. Public records, such as Supplies Ledger Cards, are considered prima facie evidence of their contents absent proof of malice or ill motive. Dishonesty, as a grave offense, cannot be mitigated by length of service or being a first-time offender, and warrants the penalty of dismissal from the service.