Facts:
In June 2003, the PNP-CIDG initiated an investigation into the alleged lavish lifestyle of several Bureau of Customs (BOC) personnel, including petitioners Flor Gupilan-Aguilar, Chief of the Miscellaneous Division, and Honore Hernandez, Customs Officer III. The investigation found Aguilar’s assets to be disproportionate to her income and charges were filed against her and Hernandez for grave misconduct and dishonesty. An administrative complaint was lodged with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), which led to Aguilar’s preventive suspension. However, the suspension was lifted when Aguilar presented evidence deemed by the OMB as weakening the complainant’s case.
Aguilar filed a counter-affidavit, contesting the non-declaration of properties and vehicles as alleged in the complaint. Hernandez contested the charge by arguing that the complaint only mentioned his ownership of an Isuzu Trooper but failed to specify the acquisition of, and nondisclosure of, unexplained wealth.
The OMB’s panel recommended that Aguilar be found guilty, while Hernandez’s liability was not established. The OMB, upon review, found both Aguilar and Hernandez guilty of the charges and dismissed them from service. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the OMB’s ruling. Aguilar pointed out the decision of the RTC of Manila which acquitted her for falsification related to the same transactions in the administrative case. They then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether a Rule 43 petition to assail the findings or decisions of the Ombudsman in an administrative case is proper.
2. Whether the acts complained of constitute grave misconduct, dishonesty, or both.
3. Whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA.
4. Whether the decision of the Ombudsman is recommendatory or immediately executory.
5. The impact of Aguilar’s acquittal in a criminal case on the administrative case.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. The procedural issue of whether a Rule 43 petition to the CA is proper was decided in the affirmative, which is consistent with jurisprudence post-Fabian vs. Desierto.
The Court ruled that Aguilar’s actions constituted dishonesty, leading to her dismissal from service, while the findings and charges against Hernandez lacked substantial evidence, resulting in his exoneration and reinstatement.
Doctrine:
The principle that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are immediately executory and not merely recommendatory.
Class Notes:
1. Administrative disciplinary cases may be appealed to the CA under Rule 43.
2. In administrative disciplinary cases, substantial evidence is required to establish guilt.
3. Ombudsman’s decisions in administrative cases are immediately executory following the policy shift from AO 14-A and AO 17.
4. Acquittal in a criminal case for reasons not affecting the administrative case does not exonerate one from administrative liability.
Historical Background:
The historical context encompasses the evolution of the Ombudsman’s authority and the change in the legal landscape with regards to the immediate executory nature of its decisions in administrative disciplinary cases, as reflected in developments following the rulings in Fabian v. Desierto and Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman.
Leave a Reply