Case Summary (G.R. No. 176127)
Antecedent Facts
The respondents filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against Domingo and the Barangay Treasurer, Fe T. Lao, claiming that they misappropriated funds and submitted false documentation regarding barangay budgeting. Notably, they alleged that Domingo falsely stated that there were no incumbent SK officials when, in fact, the respondents were duly elected officials at that time. The complaint was supported by various documents, including an Audit Observation Memorandum, a photocopy of the alleged falsified justification, and documents related to the SK election.
Petitioner’s Defense
In response, Petitioner Domingo denied the allegations, asserting that all barangay financial transactions were legitimate and properly documented, specifically referencing that the check related to the alleged misappropriation had been duly liquidated. Furthermore, he claimed that the justification containing his purported signature was forged.
Office of the Ombudsman’s Findings
The Ombudsman found Domingo guilty of violating Section 4(b) of Republic Act No. 6713, which mandates public officials to demonstrate professionalism in their duties, leading to a six-month suspension. However, charges of malversation and falsification were dismissed pending an audit.
Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal
Following the Ombudsman's decision, Domingo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He continued to assert that he could not be held liable for acts allegedly beyond his control, and he challenged the length of the suspension as excessive. His petition for review to the Court of Appeals also failed, as the court upheld the Ombudsman’s ruling on the grounds of substantial evidence supporting the findings against him.
Legal Standards and Arguments
Domingo contended that he should not be held administratively liable for the submission of a document that he alleges contained a forged signature. He maintained that he did not have control over the submission of documents related to budget appropriations, which typically fell to the Barangay Secretary or Treasurer. The Ombudsman, however, argued that the failure to contest the validity of the Justification document implied responsibility.
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Findings
The Supreme Court noted that while it typically does not review the factual findings of the Ombudsman, they found contradictions in the evidence presented. The basis for Domingo's liability was questioned because the record revealed that the existence of the SK was acknowledged in other documents
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176127)
Case Citation
- G.R. No. 176127
- Date: January 30, 2009
- Division: Second Division
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Rodomiel J. Domingo
- Respondents: Office of the Ombudsman, Kathryn Joy B. Paguio, Allan Jay M. Esguerra, Neil Patrick H. Celis
Background and Antecedent Facts
- A complaint-affidavit was lodged with the Office of the Ombudsman by Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials against Rodomiel J. Domingo and Barangay Treasurer Fe T. Lao for various allegations including malversation, falsification of public documents, dishonesty, and grave misconduct.
- The allegations centered around the misappropriation of cash advances totaling P16,784.00 from the SK funds in 2002.
- It was claimed that Domingo falsified a Justification for the barangay's 2003 budget, incorrectly stating the absence of incumbent SK officials.
Evidence Presented
- Respondents provided multiple pieces of evidence against the petitioner, including:
- An Audit Observation Memorandum from the Office of the City Auditor of Manila.
- A photocopy of the allegedly falsified Justification.
- Certificates from the SK election held on July 15, 2002.
- Affidavits from individuals who were hired for services by the respondent Paguio.
Petitioner’s Defense
- Domingo denied all allegations, asserting that all barangay financial transactions were properly documented and liquidated.
- He claimed that the check for the cash advance was liquidated with the proper documents as of June 26, 2003.
- In a reply-affidavit, he contended that his signature on the Justification was forged.