Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81160:154083&catid=1567&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:00:17+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. SAMSON DE LEON, Respondents.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. SAMSON DE LEON, Respondents.
A public official is guilty of grave misconduct when he neglects to act upon a complaint about a violation of the law he is enforcing. He may be suspended or dismissed from office for his first offense.
Acting on a report of illegal quarrying being committed in the Municipality of Baras, Rizal, Graft Investigation Officer Dante D. Tornilla of the Fact Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation pursuant to a mission order dated April 17, 1998.
From the Municipal Hall, we proceeded to the quarrying area. Along our way, we have noticed a dump truck loaded with quarrying materials coming from the quarrying site. At this juncture, we signaled the truck driver to stop and then checked the driver’s license, the truck registration while my other companions took pictures of the truck.
Verification of the above hauler truck with Plate No. TKU-121 (Isuzu) is owned and operated by Mayor Lito Tanjuatco of Tanay, Rizal. The truck driver, a certain Alfredo Casamayor Payot informed this Investigator that he is paying One hundred (P100.00) Pesos per truckload of quarrying materials to the quarry operator, a certain Mr. Javier.
Jonathan Llagas, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator denied knowing Mr. Javier nor any quarrying activities going on in Baras, Rizal. When we informed him of our findings, he insisted that the quarrying operations is within the jurisdictional area of Tanay, Rizal. To cut short our discussion, we requested him to look and see the quarrying operations to determine the territorial boundaries, whether it is a part of Baras or Tanay and to submit his findings and action taken on our request. However, up to this writing, Jonathan Llagas failed to comply.
Per report received by the Office of the Assistant Ombudsman, EIO, stated that the quarrying activities in Baras, Rizal is still going on the following day, Saturday, April 18, 1998, after our visit on Friday, April 17, 1998, (p. 21, Records). With this information, this investigator proceeded back to the Baras, Rizal and conducted ocular inspection on May 8, 1998, before proceeding to the Laguna Lake Development Authority in Calauan, Laguna, in compliance with a Mission Order.
Tornilla recommended that a preliminary investigation be conducted against Baras Municipal Mayor Roberto Ferrera, Baras Municipal Planning and Coordinator Jonathan Llagas, and property owner Venancio Javier for the probable violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); and that administrative proceedings for violations of the Civil Service Rules be also undertaken.
In his report and recommendation dated July 13, 1998,4 DILG Resident Ombudsman Rudiger G. Falcis II sought the inclusion in the investigation of De Leon as the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) and as concurrently the Chairman of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) of Rizal.
After the preliminary investigation, Graft Investigation Officer II Edgardo V. Geraldez of the FFIB, Office of the Ombudsman, issued a decision dated April 29, 1999,5 dismissing the complaint against all the respondents for lack of substantial evidence. However, Assistant Ombudsman Aportadera, Jr. recommended the disapproval of the said decision. Ombudsman Desierto approved the recommendation of Assistant Ombudsman Aportadera, Jr.
On December 2, 1999, De Leon moved for Reconsideration,8 praying that the memorandum dated October 20, 1999 be set aside.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EMBODIED IN THE DECISION DATED 29 APRIL 1999.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN FINDING THE PETITIONER LIABLE FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Office of the Ombudsman, submitted its comment on July 14, 2000,13 praying that De Leon’s petition for review be dismissed for its lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Memorandum dated October 20, 1999 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-98-0414 is hereby MODIFIED in that petitioner SAMSON DE LEON is hereby penalized with THREE (3) MONTHS SUSPENSION without pay for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY. Furthermore, it appearing that he has already served such penalty, petitioner is hereby ordered REINSTATED to his former position.
The Office of the Ombudsman sought reconsideration,15 but the CA denied its motion on June 21, 2002.
IT DECREED PRIVATE RESPONDENT LIABLE FOR SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY NOTWITHSTANDING THE UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HE FAILED TO PERFORM A TASK WHICH IS CLEARLY REPOSED ON HIM ON A REGULAR BASIS AND WHICH BREACH OF DUTY APPEARS FLAGRANT AND PALPABLE.
IT SUBSTITUTED ITS FINDING TO THAT OF THE OMBUDSMAN WHEN NO COGENT REASON EXISTS THEREFOR.
The pivotal issue is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in modifying the findings and reducing the penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The petition for review on certiorari is meritorious.
In the case at bench, petitioner, although guilty of neglect in the performance of his official duties, may only be held liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. Petitioner’s offense is not of such nature to be considered brazen, flagrant and palpable as would amount to a Gross Neglect of Duty. As pointed out by petitioner, as early as May 1997, upon the complaint of one Teresita G. Fabian, he ordered the inspection of the subject property located in Baras, Rizal. Relying on the report of Forrester Ferrer and Engineer Aide Velasquez, petitioner indorsed to the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board the former’s findings that there were “extraction” in the area. The same findings were likewise forwarded to the Regional Executive Director of the DENR. A reinvestigation of the area was again conducted in July 1997 upon petitioner’s instruction with the findings that there were no illegal quarrying activities being undertaken in the premises although a payloader and a back hoe can be seen in the area. Nonetheless, petitioner should not have merely relied on the reports and instead confirmed such findings by personally proceeding to the premises and verifying the findings, specially since the report cited the presence of large machineries, and that there was visible extraction in the area. While the Court is not inclined to conclude that there were indeed illegal quarrying activities in the area, nevertheless, prudence dictates that petitioner should have brought it upon himself to confirm the findings of the investigation. Moreover, in this day and age where environmental concerns are not to be trifled with, it devolves upon petitioner, as the Provincial Environment and Natural Resource Officer, to oversee the protection and preservation of the environment within his province. The Court cannot accept petitioner’s passing the buck, so to speak, to the Regional Director of the DENR for to do so would be tolerating bureaucracy and inefficiency in government service.
Based on the Civil Service Position Description Form,20 De Leon as the PENRO of Rizal was the highest executive officer of the DENR at the provincial level. He had the authority to coordinate all the DENR agencies within his jurisdiction, including the PMRB. In his concurrent positions as the PENRO and Chairman of the PMRB, therefore, his paramount function was to ensure that the laws enforced by the DENR as well as the rules and regulations promulgated by the DENR in implementation of such laws were complied with and effectively implemented and enforced. Verily, he was the primary implementor and enforcer within his area of responsibility of all the laws and administrative orders concerning the environment, and because of such character of his concurrent offices should have made sure that he efficiently and effectively discharged his functions and responsibilities.
In the matter that is now before us, De Leon evidently neglected to efficiently and effectively discharge his functions and responsibilities. Except for issuing the investigation order and for denying having granted any permit to quarry, he did nothing affirmative to put a stop to the illegal quarrying complained of, or to do any other action that was entirely within his power to do as the PENRO that the complaint demanded to be done.
Its foregoing observations notwithstanding, the CA still held De Leon guilty only of simple neglect of duty.
Conformably with these concepts, De Leon, given his rank and level of responsibility, was guilty of gross neglect in not performing the act expected of him as the PENRO under the circumstances obtaining. He was precisely assigned to perform tasks that imposed on him the obligation to do everything reasonably necessarily and permissible under the law in order to achieve the objectives of environmental protection. He could not feign ignorance of the Government’s current efforts to control or prevent environmental deterioration from all hazards, including uncontrolled mining and unregulated illegal quarrying, but he chose to be passive despite clear indications of the illegal quarrying activities that had been first brought to his official attention as early as in 1997 by Teresita Fabian of the Provincial Tourism Office of Rizal. The most that he did on the complaint was to dispatch two of his subordinates to verify the report of quarrying. After the subordinates returned with the information that there were no quarrying activities at the site, he was apparently content with their report. He was not even spurred into further action by the subordinates’ simultaneous report on having observed at the site the presence of earthmoving equipment (specifically, a backhoe and a payloader). Had he been conscientious, the presence of the earthmoving equipment would have quickly alerted him to the high probability of their being used in quarrying activities at the site. We presume that he was not too obtuse to sense such high probability. The seriousness of the matter should have prodded him to take further actions, including personally inspecting the site himself either to confirm the findings of the subordinates or to satisfy himself that the earthmoving equipment was not being used for quarrying. By merely denying having granted any permit or unwarranted benefit to any quarry operator, he seemingly considered the report of his subordinates satisfactory.
Curiously, De Leon contended that the responsibility to monitor any reported mining and quarrying activities belonged to the Regional Director of the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau. His contention was insincere, if not also ridiculous, however, considering that he was then the concurrent Chairman of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board, the office directly tasked with the implementation of all environmental laws, rules and regulations.
The flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of De Leon to perform his official duties denoted gross neglect of duty also because the illegal quarrying had been going for a period of time. The actions he took were inadequate, and could even be probably seen as a conscious way to mask a deliberate and intentional refusal to perform the duties that his position required. He had no justification for accepting the reports of his subordinates at face value despite indications to the contrary. Making it worse for him was that the place where the quarrying was then taking place was a mere stone’s throw away from the main road, being only about 400 meters away from the main road.
In this connection, the Court observes that gross neglect of duty includes want of even slight care. De Leon’s omission and indifference were definitely more than want of slight care, but were tantamount to a wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard the established rules, which only strengthened and confirmed his guilt of gross negligence.
The remaining question is whether or not the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman was immediately executory. The question crops up from the insistence by De Leon that his penalty of suspension for one year was not immediately executory.
Section 21. Official Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.
De Leon was subject to the disciplinary authority of the Office of the Ombudsman because he was an appointive public official.26 Indeed, the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate extends to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been committed during his tenure of office by any officer or employee of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.27 The Office of the Ombudsman also has the power to act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions that (1) are contrary to law or regulation; (2) are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory; (3) are inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions, though in accordance with law; (4) proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts; (5) are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or (6) are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.28 At the same time, the Office of the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority, can impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault. The exercise of all such powers is well founded on the Constitution and on Republic Act No. 6770.
The Court of Appeals held that the order of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of dismissal is not immediately executory. The Court of Appeals applied the ruling in Lapid v. Court of Appeals, that all other decisions of the Ombudsman which impose penalties that are not enumerated in Section 27 of RA 6770 are neither final nor immediately executory.
SEC. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. – (1) All provisionary orders at the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory.
(2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant. The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three (3) days from filing: Provided, That only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month’s salary shall be final and unappealable.
Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. – Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration.
Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. – Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, the Court noted that Section 7 of AO 17 provides for execution of the decisions pending appeal, which provision is similar to Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on January 30, 2002; HOLDS respondent SAMSON DE LEON guilty of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, and IMPOSES on him the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE FOR ONE YEAR WITHOUT PAY; and DIRECTS him to pay the costs of suit.
1Rollo, pp. 34-38; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (later Presiding Justice of the CA and Member of this Court, now retired), with Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino (retired) and Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (retired) concurring.
18 Rule IV, Section 52 (A) of the Uniform Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
22 Fernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 193983. March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 351, 364.
23Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, G.R. No. 140519, August 21, 2001, 363 SCRA 480, 487.
24 Fernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra note 22.
25 Republic v. Canastillo, G.R. No. 172729, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 546, 555.
Section 13. Mandate. — The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people.
Section 16. Applicability. — The provisions of this Act shall apply to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of office.
(6) Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.
29 G.R. No. 165416, G.R. No. 165584, and G.R. No. 165731, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 253.
31 GR No. 159395, May 7, 2008, 554 SCRA 75.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.