Facts:
Leopoldo F. Bungubung, Manager of the Port District Office, Manila, Philippine Ports Authority and Chairman of the Ports District Security Bids and Awards Committee, was the subject of a Complaint‑Affidavit dated September 7, 2001 filed by
Roberto C. Doromal, President of Combat Security & Executive Protection Agency, alleging that Bungubung demanded and received monthly "balato" payments and solicited a Mitsubishi Pajero van in connection with the award of PPA security service contracts at PDO‑Manila; Doromal supported his allegations with an affidavit of his secretary
Evalyn Cruz and an alleged CSEPA "blue book" of payments. The PPA Resident Ombudsman recommended criminal and administrative complaints, and the Ombudsman issued an order on September 10, 2003 finding probable cause to file criminal charges and later, on January 11, 2005, issued an administrative order finding Bungubung guilty of
grave misconduct, dismissing him from service and imposing the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification, an order affirmed by the Ombudsman in the April 28, 2005 denial of reconsideration; Bungubung sought relief before the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 89689 and obtained a TRO on June 3, 2005. While the CA proceedings were pending, Doromal filed an Ex‑Parte Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw Complaint and an Affidavit of Desistance in August 2005 stating that his allegations were fabricated; on June 30, 2006 the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s orders and absolved Bungubung of administrative liability for grave misconduct, denying the Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2006; the Office of the Ombudsman then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which the Supreme Court resolved by decision dated April 23, 2008.
Issues:
Did the Ombudsman’s resolution of the administrative complaint based primarily on affidavits without affiants’ personal testimony deprive
Leopoldo F. Bungubung of due process? Was there substantial evidence to support the Ombudsman’s finding that
Bungubung committed
grave misconduct warranting dismissal and the accessory penalties? Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the Ombudsman’s orders and absolving
Bungubung?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: