G.R. No. 179054 - Bagong Kapisa sa Punta Tenement, Inc. vs. Dolot

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was filed by Bagong Kapisanan sa Punta Tenement, Inc. (represented by Enrico V. EspaAo), an association representing the residents of Punta Tenement in Sta. Ana, Manila.
The petition challenges the August 1, 2007 Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92506.

Petitioner: Bagong Kapisanan sa Punta Tenement, Inc. (Punta Tenement) – an association of residents.
Respondents:

Barangay officials from Barangays 901 and 902, Zone 100, District IV, Manila – specifically named were chairmen Azer E. Dolot and Silverio S. TaaAda, among other barangay kagawads and the barangay treasurer.

Signed on February 6, 1999, by the chairmen of Barangay 901 and 902 and Inpart Engineering (represented by Antonio Benzon).
Purpose of the MOA:

To manage the repair and rehabilitation of the water system in Punta Tenement.
To organize water distribution to the residents.
To address the payment of the tenants’ back accounts with the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS).

Water was to be distributed by a contractor at a rate of P1.50 per 20-liter container.
The distribution included the allocation of P0.25 per container for the Barangay – of which 50% (P0.125) was earmarked for partial payment of MWSS back accounts and 50% for Barangay projects.
Additional allocations included P0.50 for the aguador (water collector) and P0.75 for payment of bills, salaries, maintenance, and return on investment.

Punta Tenement filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman alleging dishonesty and corruption by the barangay officials.
Allegation specifics:

Respondents conspired to defraud the tenants by failing to remit the allocated share (P0.125 per container) intended for the MWSS back account.
The MOA clearly provided that the money deducted from the barangay share would be used to pay MWSS, which was allegedly not remitted as agreed.

Evidence included the separate resolutions and the MOA provisions that detailed the remittance process.

All respondents were found guilty of dishonesty and were penalized with dismissal from service.
The finding included specific reference to the failure of the barangay officials to act on the malfunctioning arrangement with Inpart Engineering.

Respondents filed motions for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, which were denied on October 21, 2005.
The dossier then ascended to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43, where on October 20, 2006, the CA reversed the Ombudsman’s decision in part.

While the CA reaffirmed the finding of dishonesty against Chairmen Dolot and TaaAda, it held that the penalty of dismissal was too severe.
It modified the penalty to a six-month suspension without pay, dismissing related motions of the other respondents.

Punta Tenement contended that the penalty imposed by the CA (suspension) was too lenient given the gravity of the offense of dishonesty.
It challenged the exoneration of the non-chair respondents who were alleged to have actively participated in the anomalous transactions related to the water system and the patubig project.
Emphasis was placed on the clear-cut MOA provision regarding fund allocations, asserting that the chairmen’s failure to properly monitor and enforce the terms amounted to a breach of their public trust.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the penalty of dismissal to a six-month suspension for the two barangay chairmen found guilty of dishonesty.
Whether the exoneration of the other barangay officials, despite their alleged direct and continuous participation in the misappropriation and mismanagement of funds for the patubig project, was justified.
Whether the actions and inactions of the respondents in connection with the MOA and the water distribution arrangement constitute the grave administrative offense of dishonesty warranting the severe penalty of dismissal from service.