RODOMIEL J. DOMINGO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THE HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, KATHRYN JOY B. PAGUIO, ALLAN JAY …

Domingo versus Office of the Ombudsman

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Rodomiel Domingo, the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 686, Zone 75, District V, Manila, against the Office of the Ombudsman, its Overall Deputy Ombudsman, and the private complainants. Domingo asks the Supreme Court to overturn the Ombudsman's finding that he violated Section 4, paragraph b, of Republic Act Number 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, for the irregular submission of a falsified document called a Justification to the Manila Barangay Bureau in support of his barangay's 2003 budget. The case matters because it fixes the administrative responsibility of a barangay chairman over the documents supporting his budget, and it teaches the standard of review the Court applies to Ombudsman decisions.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. On August 1, 2005, the Ombudsman, through Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Lourdes Padre Juan, rendered a Decision finding Domingo guilty of violating Section 4, paragraph b, of Republic Act Number 6713 and imposing on him suspension from office for six months under Section 11 of the same Act. The charge of dishonesty based on alleged misappropriation of Sangguniang Kabataan funds was dismissed without prejudice, and the charge of falsification of public document was not given due course because the authenticity of a signature requires judicial determination. Domingo moved for reconsideration, but the Ombudsman denied it with finality in an Order dated October 11, 2005. Domingo then filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court, with a prayer for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, assigning errors against the Ombudsman's ruling.

Facts

Complaints were filed against Domingo and another respondent, arising from the alleged misappropriation of Sangguniang Kabataan funds and from a document denominated Justification, purportedly issued by Domingo, which declared that there were no incumbent Sangguniang Kabataan officials in his barangay. In truth, the complainants were themselves incumbent Sangguniang Kabataan officials of that barangay. The alleged misappropriation rested only on an Audit Observation Memorandum of the Office of the City Auditor of Manila, which merely directed the respondents to comment and submit documents, and which made no finding of anomaly.

On the falsification charge, the Ombudsman held that the authenticity of a signature in an instrument requires judicial determination, and since Domingo denied the genuineness of his signature, the charge of falsification could not be given due course. The Ombudsman nevertheless found that a copy of the Justification had been certified as a true copy of the original on file by Ruben de Jesus, Chief of the Barangay Assistance Unit of the Manila Barangay Bureau, and that the document bore the handwritten entry Copy Budget 2004. From this the Ombudsman concluded that the document had been submitted by Domingo's barangay in connection with its budget.

The Ombudsman reasoned that as Barangay Chairman, Domingo was primarily responsible for preparing the annual and supplemental budgets under Section 389, paragraph 7, Chapter 3 of the Local Government Code, and therefore assumed responsibility for all documents supporting the budget. Because Domingo admitted that Sangguniang Kabataan officials were in fact incumbent in his barangay, contrary to the declaration in the Justification, he was held administratively liable for the irregular entry of that document in the records of the Manila Barangay Bureau. On reconsideration, the Ombudsman stressed that Domingo was not held liable for falsification but for the submission of the document, and that his bare denial did not overcome the presumption of regularity in favor of the attesting public officer.

Issues

• Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman committed a patent reversible error in holding the petitioner administratively responsible for the submission to the Manila Barangay Bureau of a falsified document denominated Justification, despite its own finding that the document and his signature were falsified.
• Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman erred in treating the certification of the Chief of the Barangay Assistance Unit as to the existence of the Justification as undisputed, without requiring that officer to verify its existence.
• Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman erred in finding the petitioner guilty of violating Section 4, paragraph b, of Republic Act Number 6713, when the act for which he was indicted was beyond his control and knowledge.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, paragraph b, of Republic Act Number 6713, on the norm of professionalism, provides:

Professionalism. Public Officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.

This is the norm of conduct the Ombudsman found Domingo to have violated through his failure to observe diligence and professionalism in preparing the budget and its supporting documents.

Section 11 of Republic Act Number 6713, on penalties, provides:

Any public official as employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency.

This is the provision under which the six-month suspension was imposed and upheld.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must fail. The Court clarified that the Ombudsman did not rule that the Justification or Domingo's signature was falsified; the Ombudsman expressly left the question of genuineness to a regular court in proper proceedings. What the Ombudsman found was that the existence of the Justification and its entry in the records of the Manila Barangay Bureau were clearly established by the evidence. A copy of the document, containing Domingo's false declaration that his barangay had no incumbent Sangguniang Kabataan officials, was attested by the Chief of the Barangay Assistance Unit as a true copy of the original on file. Being a public officer, that chief is presumed to have performed his official duties regularly, and Domingo failed to overcome this presumption with clear and convincing evidence.

On the second issue, the Court held that Domingo's failure to controvert the certification left it undisputed, and that the presumption of regularity stood. The Court added that as chief executive officer of his barangay, Domingo was responsible for the irregular or anomalous submission of the Justification. His primary duty to prepare the annual and supplemental budgets under Section 389, paragraph 7, Chapter 3 of the Local Government Code carried with it the responsibility for the regular issuance and submission of all documents relative to the budget, rendering him administratively liable for any misfeasance or irregularity in connection therewith.

On the third issue, the Court held that Domingo, a public officer himself, could and must be held liable for violation of Section 4, paragraph b, of Republic Act Number 6713 for the irregular entry of the questioned document in the records of the Manila Barangay Bureau. The Court found no cogent reason to overturn the Ombudsman's decision, which was based on substantial evidence, and reiterated that as long as substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman, its decision will not be overturned on appeal.

Doctrine

A barangay chairman, as chief executive officer primarily tasked to prepare the annual and supplemental budgets under Section 389, paragraph 7, Chapter 3 of the Local Government Code, assumes responsibility for the regular issuance and submission of all documents relative to the barangay budget, and is administratively liable for any misfeasance or irregularity in connection therewith. He may be held liable under Section 4, paragraph b, of Republic Act Number 6713 for the irregular submission of a falsified supporting document even where he cannot yet be held criminally liable for falsification, because the administrative offense lies in the submission, not in the falsification. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the public officer who attested to the document's existence must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, and a mere uncorroborated denial will not suffice. Finally, findings of the Office of the Ombudsman supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect, if not finality, and will not be overturned on appeal.

Disposition

The petition for review was denied and dismissed, and the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman was affirmed in toto, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a barangay chairman answers administratively for the irregular submission of budget documents even if he is not criminally liable for their falsification. Examiners use this case to test the scope of a barangay chairman's responsibility over budget documents and the substantial evidence standard of review for Ombudsman decisions.