Rejas v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Diosdado Ditona filed a complaint alleging that Rogelio N. Quiño, as Municipal Mayor, approved appointments of his brother, Antonio N. Quiño, Jr., as Mechanical Shop Foreman, violating nepotism rules. Petitioner Cecilia Q. Rejas, as Municipal Budget Officer and sister to Rogelio and Antonio, certified these appointments. Ditona claimed the appointments involved a higher salary grade than provided by ordinance, causing damage to the government, and that Antonio falsified his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) regarding his relationship with the appointing authority. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman found Rogelio and Cecilia liable for grave misconduct and ordered their dismissal. The charge against Antonio was dismissed for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Ombudsman's findings of grave misconduct against Cecilia but reversed the ruling against Rogelio, citing condonation due to his subsequent re-elections. The CA dismissed Cecilia's petition for certiorari and partly granted her petition for review. The Petition: Petitioner Cecilia Q. Rejas assailed the CA's decision, arguing that her certifications as Municipal Budget Officer only attested to the availability of appropriations and did not directly involve the salary grade increases. She contended that these certifications were supported by appropriation ordinances and that the salary adjustments were to conform to Antonio's actual supervisory work. The Ombudsman and DILG countered that as Budget Officer, she should have known the correct salary grade and was involved in budget preparation, thus making her liable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the finding of the Ombudsman of grave misconduct against petitioner Cecilia Q. Rejas, considering her limited role as Municipal Budget Officer. Whether petitioner's certifications as Municipal Budget Officer, attesting to the availability of appropriations for Antonio N. Quiño, Jr.'s position, constitute grave misconduct, given the absence of evidence of corruption or willful intent to violate the law.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated February 15, 2018 and Resolution dated July 6, 2018, as well as the Office of the Ombudsman Decision dated September 7, 2016 and Order dated October 28, 2016, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Cecilia Q. Rejas is ABSOLVED from any administrative liability.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Misconduct against Petitioner: The Court found that the quantum of proof necessary to prove a charge in an administrative case, which is substantial evidence, was not met. While the Court acknowledged that the salary grade adjustments for Antonio were made without legal basis, it found that petitioner's acts or omissions had no material connection to these adjustments and did not constitute grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that petitioner's role as Municipal Budget Officer was limited to certifying the existence of appropriations for the position, as indicated in the Plantilla of Casual Appointments prepared by the Human Resource Management Office (HRMO). Her duty did not extend to determining the correctness of the salary grades or preparing the appointment papers. The evidence showed that appropriations were in lump-sum and that the disbursements passed government audit, negating any finding of corruption or willful intent to violate the law. The Court reiterated that to hold a public officer liable for misconduct, there must be a nexus between the official's acts and the functions of their office, and the act must be intentional. In this case, the petitioner's certifications were limited to the availability of funds as per appropriation ordinances, which were not shown to be irregular. The Court found no substantial evidence to hold petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct.
Main Doctrine
To establish administrative liability for misconduct, there must be a nexus between the public official's acts and the functions of his or her office, and the act must be intentional. Mere certification of the existence of appropriations for a position, without participation in the determination of salary grades or preparation of appointment papers, does not constitute grave misconduct, especially when the appropriations are in lump-sum and the disbursements passed audit.