Office of the Ombudsman v. Tanco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A private contractor, Leodegario A. Labao, Jr. (Labao, Jr.), filed a complaint for Grave Misconduct against Governor Victor A. Tanco, Sr. (Governor Tanco, Sr.) and his son, Vladimir L. Tanco (respondent), a Security Officer III. Labao, Jr. alleged that in 2011, after entering into construction contracts totaling P32,900,000.00 with the Province of Capiz, respondent, upon instruction of Governor Tanco, Sr., demanded P3,000,000.00 for the release of subsequent payments, threatening blacklisting. Labao, Jr. claimed he issued UCPB Check No. 007021135 dated September 21, 2011, for P3,000,000.00, payable to respondent, which was deposited to respondent's account, and subsequently, payments were released. Labao, Jr. also alleged that respondent insisted the check be made payable to him, and that he and his foreman, Ronnie B. Barrientos (Barrientos), delivered the check to respondent in the presence of Governor Tanco, Sr. at the Governor's residence. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) found both Governor Tanco, Sr. and respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the Ombudsman's decision, exonerating both. The CA applied the condonation doctrine to Governor Tanco, Sr. due to his re-election and found no substantial evidence against respondent, giving credence to his defense of a loan transaction and the alleged falsification of the check voucher. The Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration-in-intervention, which the CA denied. The Petition: The Ombudsman filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in exonerating respondent despite evidence of soliciting and accepting money, and in giving credence to Labao, Jr.'s affidavit of desistance.
Issue(s)
Whether there is substantial evidence to hold respondent Vladimir L. Tanco administratively liable for Grave Misconduct. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to Labao, Jr.'s affidavit of desistance.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial evidence to hold respondent Vladimir L. Tanco administratively liable for Grave Misconduct: The Court held that the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence. The Ombudsman argued that Barrientos' affidavit, stating he was present when respondent demanded and received the check, constituted substantial evidence. However, the Court found that Check Voucher No. 3746, with its handwritten notations, and Barrientos' affidavit, were not substantial enough to prove grave misconduct. The Court noted that Barrientos' loyalty to Labao, Jr. made his affidavit self-serving, and no other evidence corroborated the allegation of solicitation and bribe. The Court agreed with the CA that it was improbable for respondent to sign a voucher that would directly link him to an illicit transaction. Furthermore, respondent presented proof of regular loan transactions with Labao, Jr., including checks issued as payment for previous loans, which Labao, Jr. did not deny. The Court found respondent's explanation of loan transactions more credible and in keeping with the natural course of things, especially since Labao, Jr. could not definitively state which of the P5 Million checks represented a returned bribe. The Court also emphasized that an act constituting misconduct must be committed in an official capacity and bear a direct relation to official duties, which was not sufficiently established here as the transaction appeared to be private. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to Labao, Jr.'s affidavit of desistance: The Court found that Labao, Jr. also submitted a Manifestation stating that he could no longer prove the charges due to the loss of the check and check voucher during typhoon Yolanda, reiterating his request for dismissal. This manifestation, executed two years after the affidavit of desistance, buttressed the earlier statement and showed it was not a mere afterthought. The Court acknowledged that affidavits of desistance are viewed with suspicion but can be considered, especially when corroborated and absent proof of coercion. Given the manifestation and the lack of proof of undue procurement, the affidavit of desistance should be considered in favor of the respondent. The Court reiterated that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and suppositions is insufficient in administrative cases.
Main Doctrine
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence. A check voucher with handwritten notations, without other corroborating evidence, is insufficient to establish grave misconduct, especially when contradicted by proof of a loan transaction. An act to constitute misconduct must be committed in an official capacity and bear a direct relation to official duties.