THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219713. February 19, 2018.]
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, petitioner,vs. SFO1 RICKY S. BUTLAY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 19, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219713 (Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices v. SFO1 Ricky S. Butlay). — This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the May 12, 2015 Decision 1 and the July 24, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 04966-MIN, which reversed and set aside the January 11, 2012 Order 3 of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB) in OMB-P-A-10-0464-C which found SFO1 Ricky S. Butlay (respondent) guilty of simple dishonesty.
The Antecedents
This case involves the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) quarterly allocation of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) for Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL).
During the last quarter of calendar year 2009 (October to December), the Carmen Fire Substation, through SFO2 Isagani P. Legaspi (SFO2 Legaspi) and FO3 Hospicio L. Perez (FO3 Perez), submitted the requirements for the release of the quarterly POL allocation to be used by the fire truck assigned to Carmen Fire Substation, more particularly described as Isuzu Fire Truck with Engine # 6BDI-325362, Chassis # JCR420 3379073 and Plate No. SBV-799 (subject fire truck). All necessary documents for the release of the first quarter POL allocation for CY 2010 were submitted in the month of January 2010. However, sometime in February 2010, it was discovered that the subject fire truck had been unserviceable since November 26, 2009.
On March 11, 2010, S/Supt. Eleuterio N. Itturiaga (S/Supt. Itturiaga), Regional Director of the BFP, Regional Office 10, Cagayan de Oro City filed an Affidavit-Complaint 4 against C/Insp. Benigno L. Amomonpon (C/Insp. Amomonpon), SFO2 Legaspi, FO3 Perez and herein respondent for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, malversation of public property, grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
S/Supt. Itturiaga alleged in his complaint-affidavit that the subject fire truck was directly under the supervision of C/Insp. Amomonpon and SFO2 Legaspi. He also alleged that the unserviceability of the subject fire truck was never reported to his office. When required to explain, C/Insp. Amomonpon stated that the unserviceability of the subject fire truck was reported as of November 26, 2009 and the communication was prepared and signed by respondent as Provincial Supply Officer. However, S/Supt. Itturiaga alleged that the November 26, 2009 daily journal did not show any report on this matter.
In her Affidavit, 5 dated March 11, 2010, FO2 Ma. Lorena D. Tapal (FO2 Tapal), the Radio and Telephone Operator of BFP Regional Office 10, alleged that she never received any report from Carmen Fire Substation during her tour of duty pertaining to the unserviceability of the subject fire truck. She alleged that it was only on February 12, 2010 that she received a message with cite number MIS OR-11-2K9-245 informing the regional office of the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck.
In his Affidavit, 6 dated March 11, 2010, FO1 Campen T. Talastas (FO1 Talastas) alleged that one of his functions in BFP, Regional Office 10, is the consolidation of reports from all fire stations within the region pertaining to logistical matters, such as the status of fire trucks. He further alleged that it was only in the month of February 2010 that BFP, Regional Office 10 was furnished with a message regarding the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck.
In his Counter-Affidavit, 7 dated May 8, 2010, respondent alleged that he had reported the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck as early as November 26, 2009. He alleged that the report was received by FO2 Tapal and noted by Chief Inspector Oscar Q. Abecia (C/Insp. Abecia) as Acting Provincial Fire Marshal. He also alleged that he sent, on December 4, 2009, his endorsement of all of their monthly reports, which included the "status of firetruck and firepump" and that it was duly received by SFO1 Aldrin Sabellano (SFO1 Sabellano) and noted by C/Insp. Abecia. Further, he alleged that the fact that his fax message on November 26, 2009 was not included in the Daily Journal Report was due to the fact that he was not on duty the day the journal was prepared.
The OMB Ruling
On May 6, 2011, the OMB issued the decision finding C/Insp. Amomonpon, SFO2 Legaspi, FO3 Perez and respondent guilty of simple dishonesty. Both C/Insp. Amomonpon and respondent moved for reconsideration of this decision.
On January 11, 2012, the OMB issued the order granting C/Insp. Amomonpon's motion for reconsideration but denying respondent's motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration. However, the OMB found respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty instead of simple dishonesty.
The OMB agreed with respondent's argument that he cannot be held liable of simple dishonesty because he had no participation in the acquisition of and disbursement of the POL allocation for the subject fire truck. Nevertheless, the OMB found that there was substantial evidence to find him guilty for simple neglect of duty for failing to timely inform BFP, Regional Office 10 of the unserviceability of the subject fire truck. The OMB found respondent's assertions that he reported the status of the subject fire truck on November 26, 2009 and December 4, 2009 to be unsupported by credible evidence.
The OMB found that the following militated against his claims: (1) the BFP message form, which reflects the fax report made on November 26, 2009, contained respondent's signature as both drafter and releaser; (2) the fax message on November 26, 2009 was not included in the Daily Journal Report and his defense that he was not on duty at the time was not supported by evidence on record; and (3) it was not sufficiently established that the monthly reports he allegedly endorsed on December 4, 2009 were officially received on the same date because SFO1 Sabellano did not confirm his claim. Thus, the OMB held respondent liable for simple neglect of duty.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for review with the CA.
The CA Ruling
On May 12, 2015, the CA rendered the assailed decision granting respondent's petition. The CA reversed and set aside the May 6, 2011 OMB decision and January 11, 2012 OMB order insofar as respondent is concerned. The CA exonerated respondent from the charges of simple dishonesty and simple neglect of duty.
The CA found that the evidence provided by S/Supt. Itturiaga was not "substantial" enough to warrant a finding of guilt on the part of respondent for the charge of simple neglect of duty. The CA ratiocinated that the affidavits of FO2 Tapal and FO1 Talastas were self-serving and gratuitous as they failed to prove their alleged receipt of a "fax" or a "message" on February 12, 2010 regarding the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck.
On the other hand, the CA found credible the evidence submitted by respondent. First, the CA found as credible the BFP Message Form with date and time reference "P-26-1300H Nov. 2009" and reference number "MIS OR-11-2K9-245" submitted by respondent. The said BFP Message Form showed that on November 26, 2009 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, respondent reported to the Regional Director of the BFP, Regional Office 10 "that the firetruck 06 of Carmen Fire Substation is declared unserviceable as of this date due to defective engine block."
Second, the CA found that it is routine for the drafter to also sign as the releaser in the BFP Message Form, as shown in the other BFP Message Forms submitted by respondent to counter the OMB's finding.
Third, the CA held that the OMB gravely erred in failing to consider the extract from the logbook submitted by respondent which clearly shows that on November 26, 2009, an entry was made that "FT [firetruck] #06 of Carmen is unserviceable" which bore the same reference number as the BFP Message Form ("MIS OR-11-2K9-245"). The CA noted that the subject entry was found below the middle portion of the logbook extract and was preceded and followed by other entries with sequential reference numbers and chronological dates. In view of this, the CA concluded that an intercalation was impossible. Thus, the CA held that this entry substantially proves respondent's claim that he made the report as far back as November 26, 2009 and that the same was duly recorded and reflected in the official logbook. Accordingly, the CA exonerated respondent from the charges of simple dishonesty and simple neglect of duty.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a resolution dated July 24, 2015 for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition.
Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING RESPONDENT NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGE OF SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY.
Petitioner contends that the CA erred in exonerating respondent of the administrative charge of simple neglect of duty as there is sufficient and overwhelming evidence to support the OMB's finding of guilt. Petitioner insists that respondent's claim of reporting the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck as early as November 26, 2009 and December 4, 2009 is unsupported by credible evidence as discussed by the OMB in its January 11, 2012 order. Further, petitioner asserts that FO2 Tapal and FO1 Talastas clearly and categorically denied receiving any report from Carmen Fire Substation as to the unserviceability of the subject fire truck prior to February 12, 2010. Petitioner concludes that there is substantial evidence to find respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty.
In his Comment, 8 filed on November 11, 2016, respondent asserts that the arguments raised in the petition for review on certiorari is a mere rehash of those already passed upon by the CA. He reiterates that it is routine for the drafter to also sign as the releaser in the BFP Message Form as shown in the samples of message reporting done by other personnel. Further, he argues that the extract from the logbook of entries show that the unserviceability of the subject fire truck was duly reported. He attributes the denial of FO2 Tapal and FO1 Talastas to manipulations exerted by S/Supt. Itturiaga on them as their supervisor.
In its Reply, 9 filed on March 16, 2017, petitioner asserts that respondent's explanation that it is routine for the drafter to also sign as the releaser in the BFP Message Form deserves scant consideration as there is no evidence on record that such practice is sanctioned by respondent's immediate superior. It reiterates the categorical denial by FO2 Tapal and FO1 Talastas of having received any report pertaining to the unserviceability of the subject fire truck prior to February 12, 2010. Further, it argues that respondent's attack on the credibility of FO2 Tapal and FO1 Talastas is baseless and unfounded as there is no evidence on record that they were impelled by improper motive to falsely testify against respondent.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The CA did not commit any reversible error in setting aside and nullifying the OMB's order adjudging respondent guilty of the charge of simple neglect of duty.
The sole issue to be resolved in the instant case involves a finding of fact. Did respondent report the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck as early as November 26, 2009 and December 4, 2009? The OMB answered this question in the negative while the CA found that respondent reported the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck as early as November 26, 2009 and December 4, 2009.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts. The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. 10 The Court will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are final, binding, or conclusive on the parties and upon this court when supported by substantial evidence. 11 There are exceptions to this general rule, as follows:
"(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record." 12
The seventh exception, as discussed above, applies to the instant case. The findings of fact of the CA are contrary to those of the OMB, thus allowing for a review by this Court.
Each party in an administrative case must prove his affirmative allegation with substantial evidence; thus, complainant has to prove the affirmative allegations in his complaint while respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and counterclaims. 13
In this case, petitioner presented the sworn statements of two witnesses, FO2 Tapal and FO1 Talastas, denying having received any report pertaining to the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck prior to February 12, 2010. Petitioner also presented the "Daily Journal Report for November 27, 2009" showing the absence of any record of the supposed report by respondent on the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck.
On the other hand, respondent presented the following: (1) BFP Message Form concerning the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck; (2) samples of other BFP message forms; (3) Daily Journal Report for November 26, 2009; and (4) Extract from the logbook of entries of incidents and messages showing that the report of unserviceablity was duly recorded on November 26, 2009.
This Court finds the CA's findings of fact to be well-taken. Respondent sufficiently established through substantial evidence the fact that he reported the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck as early as November 26, 2009.
This Court finds credible the BFP Message Form with date and time reference "P-26-1300H Nov. 2009" and reference number "MIS OR-11-2K9-245" submitted by respondent. As described by the CA, the said BFP Message Form shows that on November 26, 2009 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, respondent reported to the Regional Director of the BFP, Regional Office 10 "that the firetruck 06 of Carmen Fire Substation is declared unserviceable as of this date due to defective engine block." It is noted that the OMB discounted this piece of evidence because respondent signed as both drafter and releaser. However, the Court gives credence to the explanation given by respondent that it is routine for the same person to sign as drafter and releaser simply because it is just a message form. The samples of other BFP message forms executed by other personnel submitted by respondent support this conclusion.
The fact that respondent sent the BFP Message Form is supported by the extract from the logbook of entries of incidents and messages submitted by respondent. As found by the CA, the said extract shows that on November 26, 2009, an entry was made that "FT [firetruck] #06 of Carmen is unserviceable" which bears the same reference number as the BFP Message Form ("MIS OR-11-2K9-245"). The Court gives credence to the CA's observation that the subject entry is found below the middle portion of evidence submitted by respondent. Accordingly, the Court finds that respondent established by substantial evidence the fact of his reporting of the unserviceable status of the subject fire truck on November 26, 2009 and his recording of the same in the logbook of entries of incidents and messages. Thus, there is no ground for an administrative charge of simple neglect of duty against respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 12, 2015 Decision and the July 24, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 04966-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles, concurring; rollo, pp. 49-62.
2.Id. at 64-65.
3. Penned by Kathryn Rose A. Hitalia-Baliatan, as approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro; id. at 108-113.
4.Id. at 66-71.
5.Id. at 84.
6.Id. at 83.
7.Id. at 85.
8.Id. at 118-120.
9.Id. at 135-144.
10. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
11.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016), citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546 (1999).
12.Id. at 182-183.
13.Pleyto v. PNP-CIDG, 563 Phil. 842, 913 (2007).