DOMINADOR B. ANDRES, PETITIONER, VS. MARJORIE P. ESCORIAL, RESPONDENT.

Andres versus Escorial

The Case

This is the case of Andres versus Escorial, a petition for review brought by Dominador Andres, a retired Assistant Secretary for Field Operations of the Department of Agrarian Reform, against Marjorie Escorial, the Marketing Director of Isla Security Agency. Escorial accused Andres of extorting money from her in exchange for a favorable award of a security services contract, and the Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty of grave misconduct. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the deference owed to the Ombudsman's factual findings, and of what corruption adds to an ordinary misconduct charge to make it grave.

Procedural History

Escorial filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty and grave misconduct against Andres before the Office of the Ombudsman, and also a criminal complaint for perjury and estafa. The Ombudsman rendered a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to prosecute Andres for estafa under the Revised Penal Code and, on substantial evidence, adjudging him guilty of grave misconduct. Because Andres had already retired, the Ombudsman imposed a fine equivalent to one year's salary, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Andres moved for reconsideration, and the Ombudsman denied it in an Order. Andres then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court, but the Court confined itself to the administrative case, since the petition probed only that aspect of the Ombudsman's judgment.

Facts

Sometime in February 2009, Escorial was at the Department of Public Works and Highways in Manila when she met Milagrina Birosel, who told her that the Department of Agrarian Reform was accepting bidders for security services. Birosel said Andres was her relative and would facilitate the award in favor of Isla Security. Birosel brought Escorial to Andres, who told her to pay for the Bidder's Form and then asked what her capacity was. When Escorial did not understand, Andres said she already knew what he meant and made a money sign with his hand. Andres later told her he needed 210,000 pesos as initial payment, to be given to Birosel, and Isla Security issued a Payment Order dated 4 March 2009 for that amount.

Isla Security was later disqualified because its bid did not comply with the required salary rate for security guards. Escorial confronted Andres, who advised her to file a request for reconsideration. On 18 April 2009, Andres called Escorial and Birosel to a meeting, guaranteed that the contract was being drafted, and asked for another 500,000 pesos, saying he would give it to then Undersecretary Narciso Nieto, who would award the contract. Escorial brought 400,000 pesos, and before releasing it asked for a guaranty. Andres issued his personal check payable to cash for the same amount, assuring her she could deposit it if the contract was not awarded.

The contract was never awarded to Isla Security. Escorial deposited the check and it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, prompting her complaints. Andres denied everything. He claimed he never received the 210,000 pesos, which Birosel received, and that the check was meant to help Birosel, his close friend's sister-in-law, in her financial distress. He also claimed he had no role in the bidding, since he was not a member of the Bids and Awards Committee or the Technical Working Group, and that issuing a personal check to guarantee a bribe would be absurd.

Issues

• Whether or not the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are binding on the courts.
• Whether or not the Ombudsman's finding of guilt for grave misconduct is supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether or not Andres is guilty of grave misconduct.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the definition of misconduct and its grave form, which the Court states as follows:

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.

This definition supplies the test the Court applies to Andres's acts, and it is the rule a reviewee must be able to recite.

The decision also adopts the Ombudsman's definition of corruption as an element of grave misconduct:

Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his position or office to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

This is the element that elevates Andres's conduct from simple misconduct to grave misconduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interfered with by the courts absent grave abuse of discretion, or unless the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Because of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative agencies over matters within their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment on those matters. Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive; conversely, when they are not adequately supported by substantial evidence, they shall not be binding upon the courts.

On the second issue, the Court found that Escorial adduced convincing and compelling evidence. Her Affidavit of Complaint chronicled in detail how Andres extracted money from her in exchange for favorable action on the bid. The Payment Order of Isla Security dated 4 March 2009 underpinned the 210,000 pesos demanded and received, and it conspicuously stated that the amount was for Assistant Secretary Andres of the Department of Agrarian Reform, as per his instruction, to be received by Birosel. Apart from his denials, Andres offered no proof to contradict this evidence. The check for 410,000 pesos, payable to cash and personally issued by Andres, supported Escorial's story that she demanded a guaranty and he readily gave the check. The Court refused to credit the story that the check was given to Birosel to aid her financial distress, since the records were devoid of proof of the supposed loan, and it echoed the Ombudsman's observation that if the check was really meant to help Birosel, Andres could easily have named her as payee instead of making it payable to cash, which under the Negotiable Instruments Law is payable to bearer.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that Andres was guilty of grave misconduct, since he extorted money from Escorial, and corruption was present as an element of the offense. The misconduct was grave because it involved corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, all proved by substantial evidence.

Doctrine

First, findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive upon the courts; they will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion, and they bind the courts only when adequately supported. Second, misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. Third, misconduct becomes grave when it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, and these must be proved by substantial evidence. Fourth, corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in an official or fiduciary person unlawfully and wrongfully using his position or office to procure some benefit for himself or another, contrary to duty and the rights of others. An examinee should tie each rule to the quoted definitions and note that the penalty may be imposed even after retirement, as the Ombudsman did here.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Joint Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman finding Andres guilty of grave misconduct, so Escorial prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: misconduct is grave when it involves corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, proved by substantial evidence. Examiners use this case to test the conclusiveness of the Ombudsman's factual findings and the elements that raise misconduct to its grave form.