JOSE LITO F. LAMBOJON, PETITIONER, VS. ENGR. DIOSDADO A. ROSALES, ACTING REGIONAL MANAGER (SG-24) NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE NO. 7 DAO DISTRICT, TAGBILARAN CITY (…

Lambojon versus Rosales

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Jose Lito F. Lambojon against Engineer Diosdado A. Rosales, then Acting Regional Manager of the National Irrigation Administration Office Number 7 in Dao District, Tagbilaran City. Lambojon asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Ombudsman's dismissal of his administrative complaint for misconduct under Section 5, paragraph a, of Republic Act Number 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The case matters because it fixes the boundary of that duty: a public officer who acts on a request, but does not act the way the requesting party wants, does not thereby commit misconduct.

Procedural History

Lambojon filed a complaint for violation of Section 5, paragraph a, of Republic Act Number 6713 before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas. In its Decision dated June 22, 2012, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding no misconduct on the part of Rosales. Lambojon moved for reconsideration, and the motion was denied. He then went up to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, assigning as errors the Ombudsman's dismissal and Rosales' refusal to sign his second appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman's decision in full.

Facts

On September 13, 2010, the National Irrigation Administration Regional Irrigation Office Number 7, through Regional Manager Modesto G. Membreve, requested authority to fill a vacancy. On April 4, 2011, Membreve asked the Civil Service Commission Bohol Field Office to publish the vacant position of Administrative Services Chief A, with a monthly salary of 29,052 pesos. The posting ran from April 19 to May 4, 2011, and Lambojon, then Administrative Services Chief A on casual status, applied. The Personnel Selection Board convened on June 29, 2011 and certified three eligible candidates, including Lambojon. On July 1, 2011, Membreve appointed Lambojon, with the certification of Rosales, then Division Manager, and of Dexter G. Patrocinio, the Board chairman.

On August 8, 2011, however, the Civil Service Commission informed Membreve that the vacant item was Administrative Services Officer V, not Administrative Services Chief A. Because the correct position had not been published, Lambojon's appointment was nullified and returned for non-compliance with Republic Act Number 7041, the Publication Law. The correct position was published from August 11 to 25, 2011, and two new applicants, Rufinita E. Ada and Ma. Higinia P. Castillon, submitted applications. Lambojon claims those applications came only on August 26, 2011, a day after the posting closed, so the Board did not consider them and issued him a second appointment on September 1, 2011, now with the correct title. This second appointment was not certified by Rosales and Patrocinio.

On September 12, 2011, Membreve directed both to explain their refusal to sign. Patrocinio signed, and the memorandum was revised to address Rosales alone. On September 15, 2011, Rosales wrote the Civil Service Commission Regional Director, asking whether the Board should screen anew to include the new applicants, and on the same day he answered Membreve, explaining that the certification he was asked to sign states that all requirements had been complied with, which he believed was not the case. The Commission declined to render a definitive opinion, but stressed that an appointment that fails to comply with the publication law is null and void, and that after compliance the appointing authority may issue an appointment immediately, provided the prescribed appointment process was properly observed. Membreve nonetheless forwarded the second appointment without Rosales' signature, and it was returned for that lack. Rosales later became Acting Regional Manager, caused the vacancy to be published again from December 6 to 19, 2011, and a new screening was held on December 21, 2011, which Lambojon did not attend. Ma. Higinia P. Castillon was appointed on January 2, 2012, and Rosales terminated Lambojon's services effective December 31, 2011 because the position was filled. Lambojon then complained to the Ombudsman, alleging that Rosales had demanded 100,000 pesos, a claim the Ombudsman did not credit.

Issues

• Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against Rosales.
• Whether or not Rosales' refusal to sign the certification on Lambojon's second appointment constituted misconduct under Section 5, paragraph a, of Republic Act Number 6713.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, paragraph a, of Republic Act Number 6713 provides:

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to: (a) Act promptly on letters and requests. - All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.

This is the provision under which Lambojon sought to hold Rosales administratively liable, and its fifteen-day duty to respond is the measure the Court applied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion. Following its earlier ruling in Vergara versus Ombudsman, the Court reiterated that courts do not interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause absent compelling reasons, and that the abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.

On the second issue, the Court found no substantial evidence of misconduct. Rosales had a good reason not to sign: after the nullification of the first appointment and the correct publication, two new applicants had come forward, and the screening had not included them. Rosales also sought the opinion of the Civil Service Commission and promptly answered Membreve's memorandum. The Court quoted with approval the Ombudsman's reasoning that the legislative intent behind Section 5, paragraph a, is to compel public officials to act with dispatch on pending requests, and that to penalize an officer on the solitary ground that he failed to respond favorably to the request would be an iniquitous if not absurd application of the law. The Court defined misconduct as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official, and grave misconduct as requiring corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule.

Doctrine

First, the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, or lack of it, is entitled to great respect, and certiorari lies only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.

Second, Section 5, paragraph a, of Republic Act Number 6713 obliges a public officer to respond to letters and requests within fifteen working days and to state the action taken; it does not oblige the officer to grant the request. Acting on a request, though not in the manner the requesting party wishes, is compliance, not misconduct.

Third, misconduct is an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, and it becomes grave only where corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule is present.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the Ombudsman's decision dismissing the complaint against Rosales was affirmed in full. Rosales prevailed.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that Section 5, paragraph a, of Republic Act Number 6713 commands a prompt reply, not a favorable one. Examiners use this case to test the elements of misconduct and grave misconduct, and the deference owed to the Ombudsman's findings in petitions for certiorari.