Ampongan v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Omar Erasmo G. Ampongan, former Vice-Mayor of Iriga City, was charged with grave misconduct, dishonesty, and oppression. The Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) passed Resolution No. 2014-138 stating that the vacant position of SP Secretary should be filled by the next-in-rank employee. Despite this, Ampongan appointed Edsel Dimaiwat, an outsider, as SP Secretary with permanent status on November 3, 2014. Ampongan certified on the Appointment Paper that Dimaiwat was screened and qualified by the Personnel Selection Board (PSB), which was allegedly false as no screening took place. Procedural History: The Civil Service Commission (CSC) – Camarines Sur Field Office (CSFO) disapproved Dimaiwat's appointment. Respondents issued a certification stating Ampongan's certification was false. Ampongan, in his defense, claimed he requested publication of the vacancy, received applications, and was informed by HRMO Beriña that applicants must be evaluated by the PSB. He sought guidance from the CSC on creating a PSB, and notified PSB members of a deliberation meeting. When they did not attend, he proceeded alone, found Dimaiwat qualified, and appointed him. He asserted he disclosed all events in the Minutes of the PSB Evaluation and a letter to the CSC-CSFO, denying intent to falsify or commit dishonesty. The Ombudsman found Ampongan administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, suspending him for one year. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Ombudsman's decision, finding Ampongan administratively liable for Grave Misconduct due to flagrant violation of Civil Service Rules on Appointment and dismissing his good faith defense. The CA held that Ampongan lacked conscious effort to comply with the rules. The Petition: Ampongan filed a petition for review, reiterating his good faith defense, blaming the respondents for not attending the PSB meeting, and arguing that the SP resolution was an error. He denied dishonesty, stating he disclosed the truth in the PSB Minutes and the letter to the CSC-CSFO. He pleaded for leniency due to his first term, good faith, and hospitalization expenses.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Ampongan guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. Whether Ampongan acted in good faith in the appointment of Edsel Dimaiwat as SP Secretary, and whether Ampongan committed dishonesty by certifying the Appointment Paper despite the alleged lack of PSB screening. Whether the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman and affirmed by the CA should be modified.
Ruling
The Court partly granted the petition, modifying the CA's decision. It found petitioner Omar Erasmo G. Ampongan guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a penalty of three (3) months suspension, convertible to a fine equivalent to his salary for three months in case of separation from service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty: The Court ruled that petitioner Ampongan was not guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Court found that Ampongan showed no willful intent to violate the law. His actions, such as inviting PSB members to a meeting and seeking guidance from the CSC, demonstrated an intention to follow proper procedures. Furthermore, his attachment of the Minutes of the PSB Evaluation to Dimaiwat's appointment paper negated any intent to distort the truth or commit dishonesty, as these minutes revealed that the PSB members did not attend the meeting. The Court emphasized that dishonesty requires concealment or distortion of truth, which was not present here because the truth was disclosed. On the issue of Good Faith and Dishonesty in certifying the Appointment Paper: The Court acknowledged Ampongan's claim of good faith, noting his efforts to comply with procedures by calling a PSB meeting and seeking CSC guidance. However, the Court found that while he did not exhibit willful intent to violate the law or deceive, he failed to exercise the necessary prudence to ensure full compliance with appointment procedures. The Court stated that Ampongan should have attempted to hold the meeting on another date instead of immediately concluding that subsequent meetings would be futile and blaming the PSB members' non-attendance on political motivations. This lack of prudence led to the finding of simple misconduct. On the imposition of penalty: The Court modified the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman and affirmed by the CA. While Ampongan was found to have transgressed rules, the absence of willful intent to violate the law or deceive, coupled with evidence of good faith and disclosure of facts, meant that the misconduct did not qualify as grave. Therefore, the penalty was reduced from grave misconduct and dishonesty to simple misconduct, with a penalty of three months suspension. The Court clarified that the validity of Dimaiwat's appointment was not affected by the irregularity of the meeting, but the irregularity subjected Ampongan to administrative liability.
Main Doctrine
While a public officer may be found liable for simple misconduct even without proof of corruption or willful intent to violate the law, the absence of such elements, coupled with evidence of good faith and attempts to comply with procedures, may warrant a modification of the penalty from grave misconduct to simple misconduct.