Office of the Ombudsman v. Baguilat

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 176485. January 10, 2018.]

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner,vs. CLARENCE L. BAGUILAT, BONIFACIO A. APURA, JOSELITO L. GUEVARA AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY), respondents.

 

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 10, 2018, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 176485 (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. CLARENCE L. BAGUILAT, BONIFACIO A. APURA, JOSELITO L. GUEVARA and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Cagayan de Oro City), Respondents.) — Gross neglect of duty denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or an unwillingness to perform a duty. Gross negligence by a public official occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 1 Thus, administrative liability for gross neglect of duty cannot be imposed in the absence of substantial evidence establishing flagrant and palpable inaction.

The Case

The petitioner challenges the adverse decision promulgated on August 15, 2006, 2 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the resolution the petitioner had issued on August 25, 2003, 3 and reversed its holding of respondents Clarence L. Baguilat, Bonifacio A. Apura, Joselito L. Guevara and Hardinado V. Patnugot, Jr. guilty of gross neglect of duty and penalizing each of them with one year suspension without pay. 4

Antecedents

The CA rendered the following procedural and factual antecedents in its challenged decision, to wit:

In the aforementioned administrative case, x x x Clarence L. Baguilat, Bonifacio A. Apura and Joselito L. Guevara, in their respective capacities as Regional Executive Director (RED), Assistant Regional Executive Director (ARED) for Administrative Services, and Chief of Land Management Division, along with Hardinado V. Patnugot, Jr., ARED for Technical Services x x x, all of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) of Region XI, Davao City, were charged with Gross Neglect of Duty and with violation of Section 4 (c) and (e) of R.A. 6713.

The said administrative case was an offshoot of a criminal case before the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, docketed therein as OMB-MIN-01-0505, filed by x x x Feliciano Pacifico, represented by Nenita, Antonio and Teresita, all surnamed Yan, against [respondents] and Hardinado V. Patnugot Jr., Rogelio D. Cantuba, Pedro M. Romero Jr., Ligaya C. Tanzo, Carol T. Labit, Judith C. Abrenica and Veronica B. Lawas.

x x x Feliciano Pacifico was an applicant to a property identified as Lot 155-A-7, SWO-5887, which is a 284-square-meter portion of a larger property titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and covered by TCT No. T-4958, situated in San Pedro Street, Davao City, patrimonial property of the State, a part of the so-called Kashiwabara property, that had been placed under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Buildings and Real Property Management (BBRPM), which itself is now under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

xxx xxx xxx

In a letter dated January 24, 1992, Regional Technical Director Matias Z. Vergara Jr., denied [Feliciano Pacifico's] application to purchase the property. [Feliciano Pacifico] appealed to the Office of the DENR Secretary. On October 26, 1994, the DENR Secretary rendered his Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed ruling of the Regional Technical Director (RTD) concerned embodied in his letter to herein appellant dated 24 January 1992 is hereby SET ASIDE. Consequently, this Office hereby ORDERS the following, to wit:

1. The March 1987 application of the herein appellant Feliciano Pacifico, to purchase the two hundred eighty-four (284) sq. m. NAFCO lot, subject of this case, should be given due course, pursuant to Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 233, that is, if he is still interested;

2. The assessed value of the subject lot should be reappraised in accordance with the pertinent regulations on the matter, both for the purpose of disposing it through sale under Batas Pambansa (BP) No. 233 and for assessing the monthly rentals due from the appellant pending the sale of the property to him; and

3. all the rentals deposited in trust by the sub-lessee with DENR Region XI and owing to the herein appellant should be released to him.

The sublessees of the property elevated the case to the Office of the President which, on May 26, 1998, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Decision of the DENR Secretary. On September 4, 1998, [Feliciano Pacifico] prayed that the Decision of the Office of the President be declared final and executory. Whereupon, the Office of the Executive Secretary issued an Order dated September 21, 1998, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of this Office of May 26, 1998, is hereby declared FINAL AND EXECUTORY, and the records of the case herewith remanded to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for execution/implementation thereof.

Dissatisfied, the sublessees elevated the case to [the CA] which dismissed the appeal on November 26, 1998 in view of the wrong mode of appeal taken by them. Sublessees elevated the case further to the Supreme Court on appeal by certiorari which was dismissed on June 23, 1999 for their petition's lack of a verified statement of the date of receipt of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. In a subsequent Resolution of October 4, 1999, the Supreme Court denied reconsideration with finality.

It was only on August 19, 2001 that x x x Clarence L. Baguilat, then Regional Director of the DENR, Region XI, issued an Execution Order directing x x x Bonifacio A. Apura, Assistant Regional Director (ARED) for Technical Services, to cause the execution of the DENR Secretary's Decision. And it would not be until November 9, 2001 that a check in the amount of P1,417,500.00 payable to [Feliciano Pacifico] was ready for release in accordance with the third paragraph of the dispositive portion of the October 26, 1994 Decision of the DENR Secretary. The check, however, remained uncollected since [Feliciano Pacifico] had not appeared to collect it personally.

Whereupon, the Yans filed the aforementioned criminal case (OMB-MIN-01-0505) before the Ombudsman-Mindanao.

In the course of the investigation of the criminal case, the respondents therein submitted a "chronology of events with the view to negate the allegations of the complaint" against them. Their recital of events may be summarized, thus:

It was only on August 3, 2000 that petitioner Baguilat received the 1st Indorsement from Atty. S. F. Rodriguez, Director, Legal Service, DENR, Quezon City, referring the motion to implement the final and executory decision and order dated September 1, 1999 together with the complete records of the case filed by the sublessees against herein private respondent. The referral was being made, according to the indorsement, "it appearing that the decisions and orders rendered by the Office of the President and the Resolution promulgated by the Supreme Court had already become final and executory.

The following day, August 4, 2000, petitioner Baguilat referred the matter to Assistant Regional Executive Director for Legal Services and Public Affairs (ARED-LSPA) for appropriate action. In turn, on August 9, 2000, ARED-LSPA referred the case to Atty. Mario C. Duaves, Chief of the Legal Division, for appropriate action. On August 15, 2000, Duaves assigned the case to stenographer Marilyn Eno with instruction to indorse the case to BBRPMS. Two days later, August 17, 2000, Duaves reassigned the case to Legal Assistant Felix Bandong for preparation of the draft Order of Execution.

On September 28, 2000, the legal division forwarded the final draft Order of Execution together with the complete records to ARED-LSPA for review and affixing of initials. The following day, September 29, 2000, the ARED-LSPA, after affixing his initial on the final draft Order of Execution, forwarded it, together with the complete records of the case, to the RED for his review and signature.

On October 3, 2000, petitioner Baguilat signed the Order of Execution and, the following day, sent back the Order of Execution to the ARED-LSPA for release. ARED-LSPA immediately forwarded the case back to the Legal Division for the final release to Assistant Regional Executive Director for Technical Services (ARED-TS), herein petitioner Apura.

The Legal Division officially released the Order of Execution, together with the complete records of the case on October 6, 2000, and was received by the Land Management Division, whose chief was herein petitioner Guevara.

Upon the instruction of petitioner Apura, petitioner Guevara immediately took steps and coordinated with Atty. Duevas and the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office (CENRO) for the implementation of the Order of Execution. Petitioner Guevara and Atty. Duaves deliberated on the appropriate actions and legal implications of releasing the rentals deposited, considering that private respondent still owed the government P1,188,123.60 as of 1995 — representing the lease rental and occupational fees on the Government property — which information was relayed to petitioner Baguilat.

Petitioners contend that the assessment on private respondent was made pursuant to Section 9, Rule VII, Title IV of Department Order No. 3, dated January 30, 1968 of the General Services Administration, implementing Section 2 of Republic Act 477, as amended, in relation to Act 3038. Said assessment is considered due and demandable on a month-to-month basis and has to be paid by Feliciano Pacifico before the Department acts further to his sales application and even assuming he will no longer pursue his application such assessment is still demandable.

On November 24, 2000, the sublessees lodged a petition before the Land Management Division, praying, among others, that they be allowed to file an application over the Government property. This prompted petitioner Guevara to refer the petition to the office of the ARED-LSPA and the Legal Division received the petition on December 11, 2000. This notwithstanding, earlier, on December 5, 2000, petitioner Guevara directed the CENR office to implement the Order of Execution. The directive was received by the CENR officer on December 20, 2000 and the case was referred to Land Management Officer Perla Guarra and assigned to Special Land Investigator Roberto Sardinia for action. On February 1, 2001, the CENR officer requested for the complete records of the case.

On March 1, 2001, a notice for the enforcement of the Order of Execution was served by the concerned CENR to respective counsels, informing them that the decision will be enforced on March 19, 2001.

On April 24, 2001, Atty. Duaves, Chief of the legal division of the office of ARED-LSPA, informed in writing the counsel for the sublessees that their petition to apply for the property could no longer be entertained in view of the fact that the subject property was the subject of the previous case involving the same parties which case already attained finality.

On July 24, 2001, a certain Atty. Charemon Clio L. Borre, claiming to represent the Yans, had a meeting with Atty. Duaves, Atty. Romero Jr., petitioners Guevara and Baguilat. Borre demanded the release of the rentals deposited in trust with the DENR XI.

On August 3, 2001, the Office of the RED received a letter from Atty. Borre reiterating the release of the rentals held in trust.

On August 10, 2001, petitioner Baguilat, through a memorandum addressed to the office of the Assistant Regional Executive Director for Administrative Services (ARED-AS), directed the release of the deposited rentals to private respondent Pacifico.

On August 21, 2001, the office of the RED received a letter from Atty. Cirilo A. Goc-Ong, counsel for the sublessees, objecting to the 10 August 2001 directive of the Office of the RED. Alarmed by the allegations contained in the letter of Goc-Ong, petitioner Baguilat, on August 22, 2001, immediately instructed the ARED-LSPA to look into the matter, in coordination with petitioner Guevara. After a thorough evaluation of the situation, the Legal Division noted that there was a marked difference in the signature of private respondent Pacifico, as appearing in the different documents contained in their records.

Nevertheless, Atty. Duaves and Atty. Romero Jr. recommended to petitioners Baguilat and Guevara to go ahead with the implementation of the third dispositive portion (release of deposited rentals) of the 26 October 1994 decision.

Petitioner Guevara directed Carol Labit, special collecting officer, to expedite processing of the required documents for the release and the determination of the amount payable to private respondent Pacifico.

However, Atty. Duaves made an opinion and rendered his advice that the check should be released only to private respondent Pacifico, considering the sizeable amount involved and to avoid possible complication that may arise in the future.

On November 9, 2001, a check in the amount of P1,417,500.00, payable to private respondent Pacifico was ready for release.

[Italics added]

In its Resolution of February 18, 2002, the Ombudsman ruled:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this office finds probable cause to indict herein respondents Baguilat, Patnugot Jr., Apura, Guevarra for violation of Section 3(e) and (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

xxx xxx xxx

However, it is hereby recommended that an administrative case be docketed against respondents Clarence L. Baguilat, Hardinado V. Patnugot, Jr., Bonifacio A. Apura and Joselito Guevarra for Neglect of Duty and violation of Section 4(c and e) of RA 6713.

Hence, the disciplinary case a quo. 5

On November 28, 2002, the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao approved the dismissal of the administrative case against the respondents and Patnugot, Jr. on the ground that there was no substantial evidence to hold them liable. 6

On review, the petitioner disapproved the recommended dismissal through the resolution of August 25, 2003, 7 and decreed:

WHEREFORE, the 26 November 2002 proposed Decision of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao recommending the dismissal of the instant complaint is hereby DISAPPROVED.

There being substantial evidence to penalize herein respondents for Gross Neglect of Duty, the penalty of one (1) year suspension without pay pursuant to Section 25 of R.A. 6770, is hereby imposed upon herein respondents Clarence L. Baguilat, Regional Director, Hardinado V. Patnugot, Jr., ARED-Administrative Services, Bonifacio A. Apura, ARED-Technical Services and Joselito L. Guevarra, Chief, Land Management Division, all of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Regional Office No. XI, Davao City.

SO ORDERED. 8

Only the herein respondents moved for reconsideration. 9

On October 2, 2003, complainant Feliciano Pacifico executed an affidavit of desistance, 10 the salient portions of which are the following:

7. That I only recently learned that the principal reason for the delay or failure was due to my personal absence that created doubt in the minds of the DENR employees as to my true identity, status and whereabouts;

xxx xxx xxx

9. That now I have been fully apprised of all the factual circumstances, I believe that the delay or failure was brought about by my personal absence and bureaucratic process systemically inherent to any agency of government;

10. That I am convinced that the delay or failure was certainly not due to or caused by gross neglect or prejudice on the part of any of said employees;

11. That I am satisfied with the official explanation given to me by the incumbent DENR Secretary;

12. That I have not suffered any substantive material injury in light of the fact that the incumbent DENR Secretary has already committed to immediately cause the release of all the rentals deposited with the DENR after proper accounting of the principals and the interests thereon, to inform me of the other legal requirements needed for the processing of my miscellaneous sales application and for the reappraisal of the land as provided in the DENR decision;

xxx xxx xxx

14. That I believe that justice would not be served if the criminal prosecution of the employees is continued and their administrative suspension implemented;

15. That I am no longer interested in their prosecution and will not testify against them for the moral reason that I am convinced that the delay or failure was systemic rather that because of gross negligence or prejudice, and also because of my failing health; 11

On November 17, 2003, the petitioner denied the motions for reconsideration. 12 The petitioner observed in relation to the complainant's affidavit of desistance as follows: 13

x x x The affidavit of desistance dated 2 October 2003 executed by complainant is of no moment. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that affidavits of desistance will not negate administrative liability because administrative proceedings against public officials and employees are imbued with public interest, public office being a public trust. 14

Decision of the CA

The respondents thus appealed.

As earlier mentioned, the CA, acting on the appeal, reversed the petitioner, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The August 25, 2003 Resolution of the Ombudsman is hereby SET ASIDE. The administrative case against petitioners (OMB-M-A-02-157-F) is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 15

The CA opined that the charge of gross neglect of duty was not established by substantial evidence; that, on the contrary, the respondents had measured up to the standards imposed upon public officers and employees; 16 that the reasons for the supposed delay in the release of the rentals due to complainant Pacifico had been fully documented by the DENR's own records; that the steps taken in the processing and releasing of the rentals were reasonable, warranted, and justified considering that the respondent had needed to take cautionary moves in order to prevent possible complications or prejudice on the part of the Government; 17 that the affidavit of desistance submitted by Pacifico was indicative of the lack of countervailing evidence against the respondents; and that the respondents' explanations for the delay were reasonable, documented and uncontroverted. 18

The petitioner sought reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion for reconsideration on January 15, 2007. 19

Issue

Hence, this appeal, with the petitioner contending that:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE OMBUDSMAN'S RESOLUTION AND ORDER FINDING PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR NEGLECT OF DUTY. 20

Ruling of the Court

We affirm the decision of the CA.

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even it inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property; and denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 21

In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any findings. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. 22

The gross neglect of duty imputed to the respondents was not established by substantial evidence. 23 In this connection, we consider to be apt and relevant the following discussions tendered by the CA in its assailed decision, viz.:

x x x [I]n arriving at its conclusion that petitioners were guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty, respondent Ombudsman relied upon the findings in its own Memorandum of January 6, 2003 in the criminal case (OMB-MIN-01-0505) x x x

A close scrutiny of the above findings reveals that public respondent found petitioners guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty entirely upon the lapse of time from the finality of the Decision of the DENR Secretary to the preparation of the check for release in the implementation of that Decision. From such delay, the Ombudsman also concluded that petitioner Baguilat failed to monitor compliance with the directives to implement the decision. Viewing the delay as discriminatory against private respondent, it found petitioners' insistence on the personal appearance of private respondent to receive the check as "just mere subterfuge to cover up their intention not to release the amount."

This is not enough. Gross Neglect of Duty implies more than mere bureaucratic delay or lapse of time. The essence of neglect of duty is the inaction of the public official or employee upon a matter pending before him. The mere fact that there was a substantial period of time that elapsed from the finality of the Decision of the DENR Secretary to the issuance of the check does not, by itself, constitute Gross Neglect of Duty. Gross neglect refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation when there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. (Emphasis ours)

On the other hand, We note that petitioners' explanation for the delay is fully documented. The chronology is replete with references to the DENR's records on the matter of the private respondent's application for the property. Each item in the narrative, each step in the processing of the release of the amount to private respondent is reasonable, warranted and justified. Even petitioners' insistence that private respondent receive the check in person was neither discriminatory against private respondent nor "merely a subterfuge for the alleged refusal of petitioners to release the check." It was, in the context of the narrative, a cautionary move on petitioners' part to prevent possible complications or prejudice on the part of the government, especially in view of the allegations that private respondent may no longer be alive, which, if true, would revoke the authority of the Yans to collect the amount of the DENR in his behalf. 24

Based on the respondents' chronology of the relevant events and incidents, which the DENR records themselves entirely supported, 25 the respondents sufficiently justified the delay attendant to the release of the rentals to Pacifico. They plainly showed why the delay had occurred from the time the first indorsement was submitted on August 3, 2000 26 until November 9, 2001 when the check representing the rentals was issued and ready for release. Under the established circumstances, therefore, they were neither inattentive nor thoughtless in attending to the release of the rentals to Pacifico. On the contrary, they were only careful in taking every step necessary to ensure that the release of the rentals would be proper and prompt.

According to the CA, Pacifico's affidavit of desistance effectively signified that the respondents' explanations were uncontradicted. The CA observed thusly:

Moreover, by reason of private respondent's affidavit of desistance, the explanation of petitioners stands uncontradicted. While it is true that such an affidavit does not necessarily negate administrative liability, nonetheless, in the case at bench, it is indicative of the lack of countervailing evidence against the justifications of petitioners. Petitioner's narrative is, therefore, reasonably documented and uncontroverted. It deserved consideration by the public respondent. 27

The disfavor usually taken against affidavits of desistance notwithstanding, the effect of Pacifico's desistance should not have been ignored by the petitioner. 28 At the very least, such affidavit of desistance raised grave doubts about the allegations of gross neglect against the respondents because Pacifico himself expressly declared therein that: "That I am convinced that the delay or failure was certainly not due to or caused by gross neglect or prejudice on the part of any of said employees." 29 If at all, the petitioner should have directed an inquiry into the desistance, instead of simply ignoring it. In view of the foregoing, the CA was correct in reversing the outcome, and in ruling in favor of the respondents.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 15, 2006, without pronouncement on costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Office of the Ombudsman v. De Leon, G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 27, citing Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, G.R. 140519, August 21, 2001, 363 SCRA 480, 487 and Fernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 193983, March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 351, 364.

2.Rollo, pp. 23-48; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, and concurred by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, and Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor.

3.Id. at 59-64; penned by Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo.

4.Id. at 64.

5.Id. at 24-31.

6.Id. at 32.

7.Id. at 59-64.

8.Id. at 64.

9.Id. at 32.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 33.

12.Id. at 34.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 48.

16.Id. at 38-39.

17.Id. at 41.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 50-51.

20. Id. at 12.

21. Office of the Ombudsman v. De Leon, G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 27, 38.

22. Office of the Ombudsman v. Dechavez, G.R. No. 176702, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 375, 382-383.

23. Rollo, pp. 38-39.

24. Id. at 39-41.

25. Id. at 28-31.

26. Id. at 28.

27. Id. at 41.

28. Ombudsman v. Bungubung, G.R. No. 175201, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 589, 613-614.

29. Rollo, p. 33.