Office of the Ombudsman v. Fetalvero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. (Lockheed) was the security services contractor for Philippine Ports Authority's Port District Office-Luzon. Lockheed received a performance rating of 78.30 or "fair," which disqualified it from bidding for a new contract. Assistant General Manager for Operations Benjamin Cecilio referred the rating for review. Port District Office-Luzon Security Staff Officer Captain Geronimo R. Grospe and Port District Manager Hector Miole recommended reconsideration and recomputation of Lockheed's rating. Cecilio directed Superintendent Loving F. Fetalvero, Jr. to review these recommendations. Port Management Office-Puerto Princesa Station Commander Aquilino Peregrina submitted Lockheed's re-evaluation performance. Cecilio eventually issued Lockheed a Certificate of Final Rating with a readjusted rating of 83.97 or "satisfactory," making it eligible to bid. Procedural History: Port Police Department Division Manager Maximo Aguirre filed a complaint-affidavit against Cecilio, Fetalvero, Miole, Grospe, and Peregrine for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, alleging that Cecilio issued the certificate without following prescribed procedures and that the reevaluation was baseless and done to favor Lockheed. The Office of the Ombudsman initially dismissed the complaint but later recommended the dismissal of the charged officers. Motions for reconsideration led to reversals and affirmations of findings of guilt. Fetalvero appealed to the Court of Appeals, which granted his petition, sustaining the dismissal of the administrative case against him. The Court of Appeals denied the Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review, arguing that the readjusted Certificate of Final Rating was loosely based on Fetalvero's reply, that two certificates were prepared (one pre-dated), that the reevaluating officers were not the original raters and lacked personal knowledge, and that Fetalvero's acts warranted a finding of administrative liability for grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Ombudsman asserted that substantial evidence was sufficient, that ministerial capacity did not absolve liability, and that the administrative case could proceed independently of the withdrawn criminal charges.
Issue(s)
Whether there is substantial evidence to hold respondent Loving F. Fetalvero, Jr. administratively liable for dishonesty and misconduct. Whether respondent Fetalvero's acts of collating and computing Lockheed's reevaluated ratings constituted grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution are affirmed. The administrative case against Loving F. Fetalvero, Jr. is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial evidence for administrative liability: The complainant, in administrative proceedings, bears the burden of proving allegations with substantial evidence, defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion." The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The petitioner's accusation that respondent Fetalvero connived with others to give Lockheed undue preference by readjusting its rating was not sufficiently proven. The evidence only showed that Fetalvero, upon orders of his superior, collated and summarized ratings and recommendations submitted by other officers into a report. This act, performed within the confines of his function as Superintendent, cannot be considered an unlawful act. On whether Fetalvero's acts constituted grave misconduct and dishonesty: The Court found that Fetalvero's participation was limited to the mechanical act of computing the raw data provided to him. Officer Generoso, in his May 21, 2003 Decision, found that Fetalvero's Memorandum and computation of ratings were regular and that he only conducted the numerical computation pursuant to Philippine Ports Authority Memorandum Circular No. 18-2000. Dishonesty involves a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, requiring intentional falsehood or fraud. Misconduct involves a wrongful intention or a transgression of a definite rule of action. Fetalvero's act of collating and computing ratings, as directed by his superior, did not demonstrate any intent to deceive or defraud, nor did it involve a transgression of established rules, as he was merely performing a ministerial duty. The Court of Appeals correctly sustained the dismissal of the administrative case against him.
Main Doctrine
The complainant bears the burden of proving allegations with substantial evidence. An employee acting in a purely ministerial capacity, merely collating and computing data as directed by a superior, without intent to deceive or defraud, cannot be held liable for dishonesty or grave misconduct.