Case Digest (G.R. No. 172729)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 172729)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo, in his capacity as former Ombudsman; and Hon. Primo C. Miro, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman, Visayas v. Woodrow Canastillo and Allan G. Valenciano, G.R. No. 172729, June 08, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.On August 6, 1996 the Commission on Audit‑Region 8 (COA‑8) conducted an ocular inspection in Northern Samar and reported six units of heavy equipment left idle and exposed to saline sea breeze in San Antonio, allegedly deteriorated and not included in the Inventory Report as of April 1, 1999. Based on COA‑8’s report and inspection, an administrative complaint was filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas charging Woodrow Canastillo (Provincial Engineer) and Allan G. Valenciano (General Services Officer) with neglect of duty for failing to exercise diligence in the care and custody of the units.
Respondents admitted the machines were old but asserted they were serviceable when acquired in the early 1980s and were used in provincial road maintenance after being brought to San Antonio in 1991. They said most units deteriorated beyond economic repair after years of use; they endeavored to dispose of them, salvaged usable parts, and respondent Valenciano submitted an Inventory and Inspection Report for disposal in July 1994 that COA did not act upon until 1996.
On June 27, 2002 the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB‑Visayas) found respondents guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s pay with warning against repetition. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 76625, which on January 21, 2005 reversed and set aside the Ombudsman decision, finding lack of substantial evidence and that respondents had exercised due diligence. The OMB’s denial of reconsideration was also appealed.
Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the CA decision and its denial of the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argued the Ombudsman’s penalty (fine equivalent to one month’s pay) was final and unappealable under Republic Act No. 6770, Sec. 27 and Administrative Order No. 7, Sec. 7, Rule III, and thus the CA lacked appellate jurisdiction; petitioner also urged that COA’s report provided substantial evidence of neglect.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the Office of the Ombudsman’s Decision imposing a penalty equivalent to one month’s pay that is declared final and unappealable under law?
- On the merits, did respondents commit Simple Neglect of Duty in relation to the custody and disposition of the heavy equipment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)