Title
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Borja
Case
G.R. No. 201830
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2015
A public official used agency funds to pay personal liabilities, leading to administrative liability for conduct prejudicial to service, despite good faith claims.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 201830)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Dismissal of Division Chiefs and Initial Administrative Proceedings
    • In August 1991, the Board of Directors of San Pablo City Water District (SPCWD) adopted resolutions dismissing its division chiefs, Evelyn Eje and Racquel Tolentino.
      • The dismissals were based on an administrative complaint filed by the water district's General Manager, Roger F. Borja.
      • The action was later appealed by Eje and Tolentino before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
    • The MSPB affirmed the dismissal; however, when the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA):
      • In a Resolution dated December 18, 1995, the CA set aside the dismissals, awarding Eje and Tolentino backwages and other employment benefits.
      • The CA held that the backwages could not be charged against SPCWD because a public officer who wrongfully removes or dismisses another acts beyond the scope of his authority and is therefore personally liable.
    • The CA decision attained finality on March 27, 1996, and by July 4, 1996, Eje and Tolentino were reinstated and paid their backwages—funds paid from SPCWD’s coffers upon Borja’s approval.
  • Subsequent Civil and Criminal Proceedings
    • In 1999, the San Pablo City Bar Association initiated a civil action on behalf of the water district’s concessionaires:
      • The suit sought to compel SPCWD’s Board of Directors and Borja to reimburse SPCWD for the money paid as backwages to Eje and Tolentino.
    • In May 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City ordered Borja to refund SPCWD the sum of P1,942,031.82 within 60 days, noting:
      • The payment was his personal liability as corroborated by information from COA Director Felicitas Ona.
      • The matter was subject to a COA audit, aimed at determining whether the payments constituted misuse of public funds.
    • Borja was also criminally charged in three cases (Criminal Case Nos. 13758-SP, 13759-SP, and 13760-SP) for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”):
      • The charges alleged that his release of funds from SPCWD to cover Eje and Tolentino’s backwages caused undue injury to the district.
      • However, an Order dated October 14, 2008, by the RTC dismissed these criminal complaints upon the Ombudsman's recommendation and the subsequent COA En Banc finding that the payments were made in good faith.
  • Administrative Charges Against Borja and the Ombudsman’s Ruling
    • In 2003, Borja and other SPCWD officers faced administrative charges (docketed as OMB-L-A-03-1156-L):
      • The complaint alleged that Borja used public funds to settle what were his personal liabilities by paying the backwages and other benefits of Eje and Tolentino.
    • In the Decision dated November 27, 2007, the Ombudsman found Borja guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service:
      • It was determined that despite previous rulings establishing his personal liability for the backwages, he directed SPCWD to release funds, thereby burdening the public entity.
      • The Ombudsman emphasized that Borja could not feign ignorance given that COA Director Ona had informed him about the personal liability doctrine.
    • Borja sought reconsideration, which was denied in his petition:
      • The Order dated October 12, 2009, reaffirmed the suspension (one year without pay).
      • An earlier Order dated September 22, 2009, had directed SPCWD’s Board of Directors to implement Borja's suspension.
  • Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling
    • Borja filed a Petition for Prohibition before the CA, which was treated as a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 112008.
      • On October 26, 2011, the CA ruled that Borja should not be held administratively liable on the ground that he made the payment in good faith, a finding supported by COA En Banc in 2004.
      • The CA noted that if there was a lack of criminal liability due to the good faith defense, there was even less justification for imposing administrative sanctions.
    • The motion for reconsideration filed by the Ombudsman was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated May 9, 2012.
  • Developments Leading to the Supreme Court
    • Undaunted, the Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 201830) before the Supreme Court:
      • It maintained that the dismissal of the criminal case does not preclude holding Borja administratively liable, as evidence required in administrative cases is of a lower threshold (substantial evidence).
      • The petitioner argued that Borja’s release of funds from SPCWD, knowing his personal liability, tarnished the office.
    • A separate petition by Lerma S. Prudente and Damaso T. Ambray (G.R. No. 201882) asserted that Borja was not in good faith in ordering the payment:
      • They referred to the CA and COA determinations of his personal liability.
      • They contended that COA Resolution No. 2004-006 did not authorize the release of funds for backwages.
    • In a Resolution dated September 5, 2012, the Supreme Court consolidated these petitions to address the core issue regarding the reversibility of the CA’s ruling.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the administrative complaint against Roger F. Borja.
    • The issue centers on whether Borja should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, irrespective of the dismissal of his criminal case.
    • It also involves examining the applicability of the good faith defense in administrative proceedings as opposed to criminal cases where a higher burden of proof exists.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms