G.R. No. 191712 - Bueno vs. Office of the Ombudsman

On February 13, 1998, former NEA Administrator Teodorico P. Sanchez issued a memorandum titled "Re: Consolidated Guidelines on the Candidacy of Coop Officials and Employees in Local, National and Barangay Elections and Related Matters."
The memorandum provided that:

All board members, general managers, and employees of electric cooperatives (ECs) shall be considered automatically resigned upon filing their Certificates of Candidacy.
Directors who ran and lost in elections shall not be eligible for reappointment.
If the spouse of an incumbent director wins an election, the director shall be considered automatically resigned upon the spouse's oath-taking.

On February 9, 2001, petitioner Edita S. Bueno, then NEA Deputy Administrator for Cooperatives Development, issued a memorandum reiterating the automatic resignation rule upon filing Certificates of Candidacy.

Pursuant to NEA Administrator Manuel Luis Sanchez’s letters, the OGCC issued Opinion No. 115 on June 25, 2001, opining that the memoranda lacked force and effect because:

The NEA Board of Administrators did not approve them though it was vested by law with the power to promulgate rules.
The memoranda were not filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center as required by law.

The OGCC advised NEA to have the memoranda approved by the Board and filed with the UP Law Center.
Subsequently, NEA Board of Administrators approved the Sanchez memorandum under Resolution No. 56 dated May 27, 2004; it was published in the Official Gazette on March 21, 2005.

On December 7, 2004, private respondents (Napoleon S. Ronquillo, Jr., Edna G. RaAa, Romeo G. Refruto) filed criminal and administrative complaints before the OMB against petitioners Bueno (NEA Administrator) and Quinajon (Director). Charges included Gross Neglect of Duty and violations of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
Complaints alleged that despite the OGCC opinion declaring the memoranda null and void, petitioners continued their implementation, causing irreparable damage to officers and employees of 119 ECs, exemplified in the case of Alejandro Ranchez, Jr. (INEC Director).
Ranchez, whose wife was elected local official, was considered automatically resigned per NEA memoranda as communicated in a letter dated July 20, 2004 by Quinajon.
Ranchez sought reconsideration, which was denied by NEA Administrator Bueno on September 27, 2004, asserting memoranda validity unless declared illegal by competent court.

Ranchez requested copies of NEA Legal Office memorandum and letters from Quinajon and Bueno seeking deferment or reconsideration between July and November 2004 but received no favorable response or clear information on the status of his petition with NEA Board.
Despite follow-ups, petitioners did not adequately inform Ranchez of the NEA Board’s approval of the memoranda by Resolution No. 56 (May 27, 2004).
Ranchez executed an affidavit recounting his efforts to obtain clarification and highlighting the lack of response and obstruction by petitioners and their staff.

The OMB dismissed charges against members of the NEA Board but found petitioners Bueno and Quinajon guilty of violating Section 5(a) of RA 6713, meting the penalty of reprimand for their neglect of duty in failing to timely respond to Ranchez’s requests.
The administrative charge of Gross Neglect of Duty was dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the OMB denied, ruling that the charge of violation of RA 6713 was sufficiently alleged and supported by facts, and that petitioners failed to prove communication of their letters to Ranchez.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the OMB decision, holding that petitioners failed to promptly reply to Ranchez within 15 working days as mandated by law.
Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court to reverse the CA decision.

Whether or not petitioners committed a violation of Section 5(a) of RA 6713 in failing to respond promptly to Ranchez’s letters within fifteen (15) working days.
Whether the private respondents had the sufficient legal standing or personal interest to file the administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Whether the penalty of reprimand imposed on petitioners was proper considering the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA.
Whether petitioners were sufficiently informed of the charges against them.
Whether the administrative complaint against petitioners should have been dismissed on grounds of lack of bad faith or absence of malice.