G.R. No. 237522 - National Bureau of Investigation vs. Najera

On April 17, 2007, agents from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)—including Conrado Najera (the respondent), Frederick Liwag, Joel Respeto, and Wilson Monton—posed as customers at a disco and amusement center to verify a complaint of human trafficking.
During this operation, the agents were provided with two lady entertainers who allegedly offered sexual services for a fee.
Following this pretext, Conrado announced a raid and apprehended 27 individuals, including the cashier, Francis Quilala.

The arrested individuals were taken to the NBI Office at Tail Avenue, Manila, but were later released.
Francis Quilala filed an administrative complaint against the raiding team, asserting, among other claims, that the center was not involved in prostitution.
Conrado, during the raid, not only ransacked the premises but also instructed the agents to confiscate items such as cigarettes, mobile phones, and money from the cash register.
Additionally, Conrado was accused of attempting to extort P500,000.00 in exchange for the employees’ freedom.

Conrado and his team contended that they acted under proper authority, having secured approval from their supervisor, Chief Head Agent Regner Peneza (Chief Peneza), to raid the establishment because it was operating without the requisite local government permit.
They argued that the complaint by Francis was fabricated to gain leverage against charges they themselves intended to file against him.
They denied the extortion allegation, asserting that any directive given by Chief Peneza would have been evident through his reaction during the investigation.

During the investigation, Chief Peneza did not appear to testify, thereby creating uncertainty regarding his role and the authenticity of the authorization.
The NBI later determined that the raid operation was unauthorized and noted that proper coordination with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division was lacking.
Based on these findings, the NBI charged the raiding team with grave misconduct, leading the Office of the Ombudsman to docket the case as OMB-C-A-07-0502-J.

On December 29, 2015, the Ombudsman found Conrado guilty of grave misconduct and imposed severe penalties, including dismissal or an equivalent fine if dismissal was inapplicable; the complaints against the other agents were dismissed.
Conrado later appealed the decision, and on May 24, 2017, the Court of Appeals (CA) partly granted his appeal by downgrading his liability to simple misconduct and imposing a suspension of three (3) months without pay (or an equivalent fine).
The CA’s decision noted that the extortion and robbery allegations were unsubstantiated, giving deference to Conrado’s claim that he had communicated the operation with his supervisor.

The NBI elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the findings of the Ombudsman and CA differed considerably.
The Petitioner (NBI) emphasized that there was substantial evidence to support the allegations of extortion and unauthorized conduct by Conrado, insisting that the Ombudsman’s findings should be upheld.

Whether there is substantial evidence to prove that Conrado Najera committed grave misconduct in the conduct of the unauthorized raid operation.

Specifically, whether the isolated testimony concerning extortion (alleging an attempt to solicit money) is sufficient to establish grave misconduct.
Whether the lack of direct testimony or certification from Chief Peneza undermines the evidence of unauthorized action.

Whether the lower courts (Ombudsman and Court of Appeals) erred in evaluating the evidence regarding Conrado’s authority to conduct the raid and the coordination with relevant agencies.

The significance of proper coordination with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division.
The implications of Conrado’s failure to inform these agencies, notwithstanding the alleged supervisory approval.

Whether the conflicting factual findings between the Ombudsman (finding grave misconduct) and the Court of Appeals (downgrading the offense to simple misconduct) warrant a re-examination by the Supreme Court within its limited jurisdiction on questions of fact in administrative proceedings.