G.R. No. 172637 - Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas vs. Castro

Petitioners: Office of the Ombudsman–Visayas (Ombudsman) and Emily Rose Ko Lim Chao (Emily) as complainant in the administrative proceeding.
Respondent: Mary Ann T. Castro, Assistant City Prosecutor of Cebu City.

In 2001, Mariven Castro bought a Fuso Canter on credit from KD Surplus and issued six post‑dated checks; the checks were subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Mariven sought to return the vehicle in exchange for the checks; on September 16, 2002, Mariven’s wife Rosefil and respondent (Mariven’s sister) brought the vehicle to KD Surplus for appraisal; Emily inspected and refused to accept it due to defects.

Security guard Mercedito Guia initially refused to log the vehicle’s entry because it was past 5:00 p.m.; at Rosefil’s prodding he inserted an entry on the logbook page and Rosefil signed it.
Respondent left and soon returned aboard a PNP‑SWAT vehicle, signed as witness on the inserted logbook entry, borrowed the logbook to photocopy, later returned it; she asked Emily to sign a yellow pad listing the checks and demanded their return, and allegedly threatened to file cases and pressured employees to testify for Mariven/Rosefil.

On September 26, 2002, Emily filed an administrative complaint for violation of RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) docketed as OMB‑V‑A‑0508‑1.
Respondent countered that the complaint was harassment, claimed police arrived ahead of her, and asserted she rode in a private Revo vehicle while merely seeking police assistance.

On May 6, 2003, the Ombudsman found respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed suspension for three months without pay, reasoning that (a) summoning and riding in a PNP‑SWAT vehicle was an overbearing display of influence, and (b) such conduct encouraged a perception of dispensing undue patronage and intimidated KD Surplus.
Motion for reconsideration by respondent was denied by the Ombudsman on July 14, 2003.

Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA). In a February 13, 2006 decision, the CA modified the Ombudsman’s ruling to find respondent guilty only of simple misconduct and reduced the penalty to one month and one day suspension, holding (a) respondent used her office’s influence to get SWAT assistance for a personal matter, but (b) the acts lacked elements qualifying as grave misconduct.
Motions for reconsideration by both parties were denied by the CA in its May 2, 2006 resolution.

Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA decisions; Ombudsman argued respondent’s use of PNP‑SWAT for a personal matter constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Respondent argued denial of due process because calling police and riding in a SWAT vehicle were allegedly not specifically charged in Emily’s complaint.

Was respondent denied due process in the administrative proceedings for lack of adequate notice of the specific allegation that she rode in a PNP‑SWAT vehicle and sought SWAT assistance?
Are the factual findings of the Ombudsman and CA entitled to deference, and is the Supreme Court limited to reviewing only errors of law under Rule 45?

Did respondent’s act of summoning and riding in a PNP‑SWAT vehicle constitute (a) simple misconduct, (b) grave misconduct, or (c) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?
Was there a sufficient nexus between respondent’s acts and her official duties to qualify the acts as misconduct in office?
What is the appropriate administrative penalty for respondent’s proven misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?