THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 220535, July 08, 2020
DENNIS M. VILLA-IGNACIO, PETITIONER, V. ELVIRA C. CHUA, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Amended Decision2 dated November 28, 2014 and the Resolution3 dated September 15, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 114702 filed by petitioner Former Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio (Villa-Ignacio).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent Special Prosecutor DENNIS M. VILLA-IGNACIO guilty of Simple Misconduct and is hereby meted the penalty of three (3) months suspension from Office without pay pursuant to Section 10, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 17 in relation to Section 25 of Republic Act 6770.In finding Villa-Ignacio administratively liable, the IAB emphasized that the donation was received and held in trust by Villa-Ignacio and Bernabe with an obligation to apply the same for the construction of deep wells.22 The IAB found that Villa-Ignacio failed to satisfactorily refute the claim of Chua and other officers of OSP who denied being informed of the change in the beneficiary of their donation. The IAB added that mere juridical possession is enough for Villa-Ignacio to acquire control in the disposition of the money or personal property received.23
The administrative complaint against respondent ERLINA C. BERNABE be [sic] dismissed for lack of merit.
SO DECIDED.21 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 3, 2009, and the Joint Order, dated June 4. 2010, of the Internal Affairs Board of the Office of the Ombudsman are hereby annulled and set aside. In their stead, a new judgment is hereby entered dismissing the charges for Misconduct, Dishonesty, Abuse of Authority & Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service against Petitioner for utter lack of merit.After a perusal of the records, the CA found that Villa-Ignacio presented substantial evidence to show that he acted with regularity and transparency in making the donation to the Gawad Kalinga.29 The affidavits of the OSP employees corroborated Villa-Ignacio's claim that he made all his announcements during the flag ceremony and that he sought the consensus of the employees as to what to do with the proceeds of the charity drive. The CA held that Chua was never deprived of any information regarding her donation since the information was made public and available to all the employees. The CA noted that it took Chua more than three years to inquire about her donation. Her silence for more than three years was deemed an implied consent for which she cannot now deny knowing what happened to the donation.30
SO ORDERED.28 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.The CA held that Chua did not only give the donation specifically for the purpose of purchasing water pumps, she neither consented to, nor was she informed of the diversion of the donation to Gawad Kalinga Foundation.34 The Manifestation35 dated September 4, 2008 executed by 28 officials and employees of OSP stated that "it was only recently or about the time when Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio revealed to the press that Director Elvira Chua filed a complaint of [sic] estafa against him that we came to know that part of the amount we (Prosecutors) gave to the 2004 Christmas Party for the purchase of water pumps was diverted to Gawad Kalinga project of building shelter (houses)."36 Contrary to Villa-Ignacio's assertion that Prosecutors John I.C. Turalba and Rabendrath Y. Uy volunteered to help in looking for contractors to build the deep wells, the CA noted that both Turalba and Uy categorically denied under oath having been asked by Villa-Ignacio to look for a contractor or having volunteered to look for one.37
SO ORDERED.33 (Emphasis in the original)
x x x [P]etitioner's counsel's receipt of the Amended Decision was on December 5, 2014. He filed the instant motion only on January 5, 2015 or beyond the reglementary period set forth under the Rules of Court.As the Amended Decision became final and executory, the CA directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue an Entry of Judgment.40
x x x x
In this case, the 15-day period of Petitioner run upon his counsel's receipt of the Amended Decision on December 5, 2014, as evidenced by the Registry Return Card, and not from December 15, 2014 as barely claimed by counsel to be the date of receipt of the said Amended Decision. From December 5, 2014, Petitioner's counsel supposedly had until December 22, 2014 within which to file a motion for reconsideration but they delayed the filing until it was already January 5, 2015 or beyond permissible time frame.39 (Emphasis and citations omitted)
1. Whether the Amended Decision of the CA attained finality due to the alleged failure of Villa-Ignacio to timely file his Motion for Reconsideration;
2. Whether the 2012 Decision absolving Villa-Ignacio of the administrative charges against him was already final, executory and not appealable;
3. Whether Orlando Casimiro should have been disqualified from acting on the complaint of Chua pursuant to Section III(N) of Administrative Order No. 16 (A.O. 16); and
4. Whether Villa-Ignacio is guilty of simple misconduct.
x x x xThe explanation above sufficiently clarified the inadvertence committed by the office secretary. We find her explanation to be more consistent with the other stamps appearing on the envelope63 of the Amended Decision that the office of Atty. Sanidad received and submitted for Our evaluation.
5. By inadvertence and to my best recollection, the date I stamped to all Registry Return Receipts on that particular day was "DEC 05 2014" instead of "DEC 15, 2014". It was merely because the number 1 of the dater was unnoticeably changed with 0 and without double checking I was able to give it back to the mailman on the following day when he delivered our mails.
6. Consequently, the Registry Return Receipt attached to the said Notice of Amended Decision from the Court of Appeals was also stamped with "DEC 05 2014" instead of "DEC 15, 2014."62cralawlawlibrary
December 30, 2014 | Regular Holiday (pursuant to Proclamation No. 655, series of 2013) |
December 31, 2014 | Special Non-Working Day (pursuant to Proclamation No. 655, series of 2013) |
January 1, 2015 | Regular Holiday (pursuant to Proclamation No. 831 series of 2014) |
January 2, 2015 | Special Non-Working Holiday (pursuant to Proclamation No. 831, series of 2014) |
January 3, 2015 | Saturday |
January 4, 2015 | Sunday |
N. DisqualificationsThe Court has already settled this issue in the related case of Villa-Ignacio v. Ombudsman Gutierrez,66 where it was held that the above-cited provision "patently disqualifies a person who belongs to the same component unit as any of the parties to the case, regardless of the timeframe that the acts complained of transpired."67 Even if item numbers 2 and 3 of Section III(N) of A.O. 16, series of 2003 had been deleted in Administrative Order No. 21 (A.O. 21), series of 2009, Casimiro should have been disqualified to act on the complaint Chua filed on March 27, 2008. The Court explained in Villa-Ignacio v. Ombudsman Gutierrez,68 that: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Chairman, Vice Chairman or any member of the IAB,' as well as any member of the IAB Investigating Staff, shall be automatically disqualified from acting on a complaint or participating in a proceeding under the following circumstances:
1. He is a party to the complaint, either as a respondent or complainant;
- He belongs to the same component unit as any of the parties to the case;
- He belongs or belonged to the same component unit as any of the parties to the case during the period when the act complained of transpired;
- He is pecuniarily interested in the case or is related to any of the parties within the sixth degree of affinity or consanguinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the provisions of civil law; or
- He has, at one time or another, acted upon the matter subject of the complaint or proceeding, x x x65 (Emphasis supplied)
Villa-Ignacio is not guilty ofThis amendment acquired a questionable character, as it was sought to be implemented subsequent to the breach by the IAB of its own rules. In our view, the supervening revision of A.O. 16 contravenes the avowed policy of the Office of the Ombudsman "to adopt and promulgate stringent rules that shall ensure fairness, impartiality, propriety and integrity in all its actions." x x x Changing regulations in the middle of the proceedings without reason, after the violation has accrued, does not comply with fundamental fairness, or in other words, due process of law.69 (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original; citations omitted)
Misconduct refers to"Applying the foregoing definition of misconduct, We find sufficient justification to reverse the ruling of the CA in its Amended Decision. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, Villa-Ignacio did not have ill motive or corrupt desire for personal gain in appropriating the donation for a different beneficiary. It is not sensible and reasonable to expect that Villa-Ignacio will ask each and every employee of the OSP whether they consent to the proposed turnover of the proceeds of the charity drive to Gawad Kalinga instead of devoting his time to fulfill his responsibilities as head of the OSP. As Special Prosecutor, it is recognized that he has to attend to various pressing matters that require his immediate attention.xxx [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 established by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.70 (Citations omitted; italics in the original)
According to Section 4, Rule II of A.O. 7 entitled "Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman," supporting witnesses must execute affidavits to substantiate a complaint against a person under preliminary investigation. Affidavits are voluntary declarations of fact written down and sworn to by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.Due to this supervening ruling, We cannot give credence to the Manifestation76 dated September 4, 2008 that the CA relied upon in revisiting its original Decision77 and in finding Villa-Ignacio guilty of simple misconduct.78
Here, the IAB concluded that a "majority of the OSP officers and employees disclaimed that they had knowledge of and consented to the turning-over of their donations to Gawad Kalinga Foundation." As its basis, public respondent relied upon the Manifestation dated 4 September 2008 signed by 28 officials and employees of the OSP.
That Manifestation, which purports to be the voice of the majority belying the donation to Gawad Kalinga, does not qualify as an affidavit as it was not sworn to by the declarants before an officer authorized to administer oaths. Therefore, based on A.O. 7, public respondents should not have considered an unverified and unidentified private document as evidence in its proceeding against petitioner. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
Section 3. How initiated. - An administrative case may be initiated by a written complaint under oath accompanied by affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support of the charge. Such complaint shall be accompanied by a Certificate of Non Forum Shopping duly subscribed and sworn to by the complainant or his counsel. An administrative proceeding may also be ordered by the Ombudsman or the respective Deputy Ombudsman on his initiative or on the basis of a complaint originally filed as a criminal action or a grievance complaint or request for assistance. (Emphasis in the original)Without a an affidavit duly sworn to by the declarants before an officer authorized to administer oaths to support the complaint in the administrative case, the Manifestation[80 cannot be considered to have met the parameters set in A.O. 7 to initiate an administrative case before the IAB. Thus, there is sufficient justification in not giving credence to the same document in the present administrative complaint against Villa-Ignacio.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member per Raffle dated July 8, 2020.
1Rollo, pp. 11-79.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, (Former Member of this Court) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Ramon A. Cruz; id. at 85-91.
3 Id. at 94-98
4 Id. at 177-187.
5 Id. at 23 1-232.
6 Id. at 189.
7 Id. at 178.
8 Id. at 194.
9 Id. at 192, 234.
10 Id. at 195.
11 Id. at 235.
12 Id. at 237.
13 Id. at 233-234.
14 Id. at 367-368.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 342.
17 Id. at 368.
18 Id. at 179.
19 Id. at 190.
20 Signed by Chairman Orlando C. Casimiro, Vice-Chairman Etnilio A. Gonzalez III, and IAB members Robert E. Kallos, Evelyn A. Baiiton, Rodolfo M. Elman, and Virginia P. Santiago; approved by Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez; id. at 421-444.
21 Id. at 442-443.
22 Id. at 438.
23 Id. at 439.
24 Id. at 440.
25 Id. at 447-478.
26 Signed by Chairman Orlando C. Casimiro, Vice-Chairman Emilio A. Gonzalez III, and IAB members Robert E. Kallos, Evelyn A. Baliton, Rodolfo M. Elman, and Virginia P Santiago; approved by Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas NavarroGutierrez; id. at 489-497.
27 Penned by Associate Justice "Noel G. Tijam (Former Members of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Ramon A. Cruz; id. at 100-120.
28 Id. at 119-120.
29 Id. at 119.
30 Id. at 117.
31 Id. at 843-859.
32 Supra note 2.
33Rollo, p. 91.
34 Id. at 89.
35 Id. at 323-325
36 Id. at 89, 323.
37 Id. at 89.
38 Supra note 3.
39Rollo, p. 96.
40 Id. at 98.
41 Id. at 29-36.
42 Id. at 36-38.
43 Id. at 38-41.
44 Id. at 41-50.
45 Id. at 50-53.
46 Id. at 53-60.
47 Id. at 60-78.
48 Id at 70-75.
49 Id. at 929-951.
50 Id. at 937-938.
51 Id. at 939-943.
52 Id. at 943-946.
53 Id. at 948-949.
54 Id. at 121.
55 Id. at 125.
56 Id. at 126-127.
57 Id. at 25.
58 Id. at 128.
59 Id. at 29.
60 Id. at 30, 125.
61 Id. at 121.
62 Id.
63 Id. at 125.
64 Section 7, Rule 111 of Administrative Order No. 7, series of 1990 states:
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 receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.
65Villa-Ignacio v. Ombudsman Gutierrez, 806 Phil. 175. 182 (2017).
66 Id.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id.
70Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 579 (2005).
71Rollo, p. 189.
72 Id. at 231-232.
73 Id. at 90.
74 Supra note 65 at 182.
75 Id. at 187.
76Rollo, pp. 323-325.
77 Supra note 27.
78 Supra note 32.
79 Otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
80Rollo, pp. 323-325.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary