THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223675. November 10, 2021.]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. LUDIVINA F. MANLANGIT, RODRIGO T. JACLA, EDUARDO M. ENRADO, AND REYNALDO B. CORTEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223675 (Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner,v.Ludivina F. Manlangit, Rodrigo T. Jacla, Eduardo M. Enrado, and Reynaldo B. Cortez,Respondents.) — We resolve this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 11 December 2015 and Resolution 3 dated 16 March 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118196. The CA set aside the undated Decision 4 of Petitioner Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-09-0507-I, and dismissing the Complaint-Affidavit 5 filed against respondents Ludivina F. Manlangit (Manlangit), Rodrigo T. Jacla (Jacla), Eduardo M. Enrado (Enrado), and Reynaldo B. Cortez (Cortez) (collectively, respondents).
Antecedents
On 11 August 2009, Enrico V. Espano, Ruben E. Espedido, Felicidad P. Cabezas, Jaime, C. Miralles, Sr., Romeo N. Ebio, Nelia E. Entereso, Alex R. Barrientos, and Jaime C. Condeno (private complainants), residents of the Punta Tenement, filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman against the officials of Brgy. 902, Zone 100, District 6 of Manila, and the officials of Brgy. 901, Zone 100, Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila, namely: Azer Dolot (Dolot) as punong barangay, Eileen A. Pineda as barangay treasurer, and Jerome S. Advincula, Teodulfo B. Zurita, Santiago A. Alva, and respondents Manlangit, Jacla, Enrado, and Cortez, as barangay kagawads together with the following private persons: Francisco Mejia (Mejia), Elsa Mejia, Aris P. Tamayo, Carlos Martia P. Catapang, Rosie N. Dolot, and Ana Rosa C. San Juan.
Petitioner alleged that the Punta Tenement is an urban high-rise housing project located in Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902, Zone 100, Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila. On 16 November 1998, Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902, through their respective councils, passed separate resolutions authorizing their respective punong barangays, Dolot and Silverio Tañada (Tañada), to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Inpart Engineering for the management of Punta Tenement's water distribution. On 06 February 1999, Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902 passed Joint Resolution No. 99-006 adopting and approving the MOA entered into by their respective punong barangays with Inpart Engineering. CAIHTE
The MOA was devised to rehabilitate Punta Tenement's water system and manage the water distribution therein or the Patubig Project. Inpart Engineering was allowed to charge distribution fees, a portion of which was allocated to settle Punta Tenement's back account with the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) — Php0.25 will be remitted to the barangay, 50% or Php0.125 shall be paid to MWSS in partial payment of the back account of Php1,845,541.65 as of 31 July 1997, and the other 50% or Php0.125 will be remitted directly to the barangay for whatever project they intend to use of the said fund. Further, the MOA was valid for five (5) years. At the end thereof, Inpart Engineering should turnover to Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902 the water facility in good condition, and the management of the Patubig Project.
On 05 February 2004, the MOA expired. Some of the residents, however, discovered that its MWSS back account remained outstanding because of the non-remittance of the allocation. This prompted them to file charges for estafa against the owner of Inpart Engineering, Mejia, and the concerned barangay officials, among others. In the meantime, Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902 extended the MOA for a year on 15 March 2004 and extended it for another two (2) years on 05 February 2005. On 28 May 2007, Brgy. 901 — with Dolot and respondents respectively as punong barangay and kagawads — passed Resolution No. 08-007 authorizing Punta Tenement Residents Association, Inc. ("PTRAI"), a non-stock, non-profit association, to take over the management of the Patubig Project. On 02 August 2007, PTRAI via a MOA contracted out the operation of the Patubig Project to Inpart Waterworks & Development Corporation (IWADCO). But unlike the original MOA between Inpart Engineering and Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902, there was no provision for the payment of Punta Tenement's back account with MWSS. All profits from the Patubig Project were to be divided between PTRAI and IWADCO.
Bagong Kapisanan sa Punta Tenement, Inc. ("BKPTI") sent a letter on 11 December 2008 to the officials of Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902 opposing the MOA between PTRAI and IWADCO on the ground that the latter is owned by Mejia, the same person who owns Inpart Engineering and earlier charged with estafa in connection with the original MOA. A month thereafter, or on 16 January 2009, BKPTI again sent separate letters to the officials of Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902, this time, demanding for an accounting of the profits generated by the Patubig Project for July to December 2008. BKPTI sent follow-up letters on 10 February 2009 and 07 April 2009. These were not responded to.
In their Counter-Affidavit, 6 respondents denied the allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit, and alleged that the administration of the Patubig Project had already been transferred to the dominant resident association, PTRAI, since 01 June 2007. They also stressed that the availment of the services is voluntary since residents have the option to obtain their water from other sources, or even put up their own project.
Respondents also claimed that the turnover of the Patubig Project after the expiration of the MOA was pursuant to a court order issued by Branch 40, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The adoption of the 15-year contract was with the consent of the majority of the residents of Punta Tenement. The computation of the alleged net profit for the period July to December 2008 had no basis because private complainants did not have a record of the daily transactions of the Patubig Project. Likewise, private complainants also filed numerous complaints before the various offices to harass, advance their interests, and gain control of the operation of the Patubig Project. They also failed to establish respondents' participation in the commission of the acts alleged in the Complaint-Affidavit.
In an undated Decision in OMB-C-A-09-0507-I, the Ombudsman ordered respondents' dismissal from service, and imposed all the accessory penalties. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and prayed the Ombudsman to reverse and set aside the assailed undated Decision. However, respondents' motion was denied for lack of merit in the Order dated 24 September 2010, 7 prompting respondents to file a Petition for Review 8 with the Court of Appeals.
In its Decision dated 11 December 2015, the Court of Appeals set aside the undated Decision of the Ombudsman. The dispositive portion states:
We rule as follows: 1) we SET ASIDE the undated Decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-09-0507-I, and instead we DISMISS the Complaint-Affidavit as against Ludivina F. Manlangit, Rodrigo T. Jacla, Eduardo M. Enrado, and Reynaldo B. Cortez; 2) we DISMISS the Petition with respect to Azer E. Dolot for being moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Thereafter, the Office of the Ombudsman moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution dated 16 March 2016. Hence, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the instant Petition before this Court.
Ruling of the Court
Petitioner mainly claims that respondents betrayed their constituents when they refused to directly manage the Patubig Project, and instead, allowed PTRAI to take complete control over it. Petitioner further states that the transfer smacks of impropriety and corruption, as PTRAI is a private entity in which select barangay officials, including the respondents, have a financial interest, and hence a case of self-dealing. DETACa
It should be noted that substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is required to prove allegations of gross misconduct. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes, 9 the Court has defined grave misconduct as follows:
Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." In Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence. 10
In this case, petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that respondents are guilty of grave misconduct, particularly the element of corruption. While the Patubig Project has been controversial, the main problem of the original MOA was the non-remittance of the proceeds of the amounts intended to be paid for the outstanding amount of Punta Tenement with the MWSS. In this regard, this Court, in Bagong Kapisanan sa Punta Tenement v. Dolot, 11 found the punong barangays of Brgy. 901 and Brgy. 902, Dolot and Tañada, guilty of dishonesty and were ordered dismissed from service with the forfeiture of benefits. As ruled therein:
Based on the contract, both barangays were to receive P0.25/20 liter as their share in the water distribution arrangement. From the said amount, 50% was allocated for the payment of back account with MWSS, while the remaining 50% was earmarked to their other barangay-related projects. The provision was very clear and categorical. Inpart was never tasked to pay the barangays' back account as the money allocated for payment was agreed to be deducted from the barangays' share. Apart from the self-serving declaration of Dolot and Tañada that it was Inpart's obligation to remit payments to MWSS, nothing in the records would show that they had an arrangement to such effect.
Thus, the Court cannot accept their flimsy excuse that it was the contractor's job to remit payments to the MWSS. As public servants and representatives of their respective barangays, it behooves upon Dolot and Tañada to ensure that the main goals of the MOA, which were to distribute water to the tenants and pay the tenement's back account with the MWSS, are faithfully followed. Even assuming that Inpart was the one delegated to pay the barangays' back account, the respondents should have checked on the status of the payment. They failed to demand accountability from Inpart to ensure that their payments were properly documented and remitted to MWSS. Their inaction demonstrated a lack of concern for the welfare of their constituents. Simply stated, they reneged on their sworn duty to be true to their constituents. 12
It also bears noting that the same case involved respondents Manlangit, Jacla, and Enrado, and the Court absolved them from liability in this manner:
As to the other respondents, the Court affirms the dismissal of the complaint against them for lack of evidence proving, even in the slightest degree, that they had a direct hand in the mishandling of the tenement's patubig project. They merely signed the resolution approving the MOA in their capacities as barangay kagawads, a laudable remedy to alleviate the plight of the members of the Punta Tenement. 13
The transfer of the management of the water system to PTRAI does not of itself amount to misconduct as it appears to have been intended to allow the majority of the residents of Punta Tenement to decide the management of their water supply system. As a non-stock, non-profit association, it is erroneous for petitioner to claim that there is financial interest in favor of respondents under the arrangement.
PTRAI as a non-stock, non-profit association was organized to "cooperate with the Barangay and other government instrumentalities in the execution of government policies which will redound to the benefits of the general public," and "to act as an intermediary with the different government agencies tasked with the delivery of basic necessities and services to the community," among others. It should also be emphasized that "no part of the income which the corporation may obtain as an incident to its operation shall be distributed as dividends to its members, trustees or officers."
Under Section 17 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), the barangay has power over the maintenance of water supply systems. In addition, Section 391 of the same law empowers the sangguniang barangay, as the legislative body of the barangay, to regulate barangay waterworks. Direct management of the waterworks, however, is not required under the LGC. As such, respondents cannot be faulted in authorizing PTRAI to manage the water supply system of Punta Tenement. In any case, the authorization clearly shows that there was no abdication of the power to regulate as can be gleaned from the Resolution:
RESOLVED, that in case of failure of PUNTA TENEMENT RESIDENTS ASSN., INC. to deliver or perform its functions in the water distribution management to the residents of Sta. Ana Tenement, Barangay 901 will automatically cancel the authorization and endorse the water management to residents of Barangay 901 who are willing and capable to perform such function.
The transfer of management of water systems has also been recognized under Republic Act No. 6716 in relation to water wells, rainwater collectors, development of springs and rehabilitation of existing water wells in barangays. Under the said law, a Barangay Waterworks and Sanitation Association can be formed and organized to ensure proper use of the said water facilities. Applying the same reason, the authorization of PTRAI to manage the water system of Punta Tenement, which was the primary act ascribed to respondents as barangay kagawads, cannot be considered as unlawful in and of itself.
Furthermore, the lack of share from the profits of Brgy. 901 under the second MOA does not amount to misconduct as it was PTRAI who has been authorized to manage the water system. Since the share of Brgy. 901 was contractual based on the original MOA which already expired, the lack thereof in a subsequent contract entered into by an entity authorized to manage the waterworks system cannot be adversely ascribed to respondents without any proof that the latter intervened in the subsequent MOA. aDSIHc
Absent any clear showing of culpability on the part of respondents, the Petition should be denied and the ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision 14 dated 11 December 2015 and Resolution 15 dated 16 March 2016 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 28-39 dated 16 September 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 29-52 (sans Annexes).
2. Id. at 53-60; Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
3. Id. at 61-62; Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
4. Id. at 137-156.
5. Id. at 99-105.
6. Id. at 106-109.
7. Id. at 173-178.
8. Id. at 179-207.
9. 570 Phil. 464-475 (2008).
10. Id. citations omitted.
11. 694 Phil. 305-321 (2012).
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Rollo, pp. 53-60.
15. Id. at 61-62.