FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224984. May 14, 2021.]
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION OFFICE (PACPO)-LUZON [REP. BY MARIVIC DELA CRUZ], petitioner, vs.MANOLITO Y. MENDOZA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224984 (Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO)-Luzon [rep. by Marivic Dela Cruz] v. Manolito Y. Mendoza, Jr.) — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 7, 2016 Decision 2 and June 2, 2016 Resolution 3 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 139691, which found Manolito Y. Mendoza, Jr. (respondent) liable for Simple Misconduct instead of Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct as pronounced by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
On May 31, 2006, a public bidding for the San Jose Communal Irrigation System Project was conducted. The project entails the well-drilling, casing, and construction of seven (7) shallow tube wells and installation of seven (7) pumps. D.M. House Construction, Inc. was declared the winning bidder after offering the lowest bid of P809,200.00. Construction works commenced shortly thereafter. 4
On July 25, 2006, the Project-in-Charge, Ronillo R. Riguer (Riguer), executed a Statement of Work Accomplishment 5 itemizing the work done and stating that the work was 100% complete. The following day, the Chairman and members of the Provincial Inspection and Acceptance Team of Bataan (inspection team), of which respondent was a member, conducted an ocular inspection of the project and found the same satisfactory and acceptable. They then issued a Report of Inspection (Report)6 certifying and accepting the San Jose Communal Irrigation System Project as physically completed. Pursuant to this report, D.M. House Construction, Inc. was paid. 7
Subsequently, Amelia D. Angeles (Angeles), Collection Representative of the Bataan Provincial Irrigation Management Office (Bataan PIMO), filed a Letter-Complaint dated July 9, 2007 with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (Deputy Ombudsman), alleging irregularities in the disbursement of P809,200.00 for the irrigation project. She also sought the suspension of Nestor C. Fernandez (Fernandez), the Provincial Irrigation Manager of the Bataan PIMO, who she said was the one who entered into the questioned transaction. 8
Fernandez, in turn, filed a complaint for dishonesty and misconduct against Angeles with the Deputy Ombudsman, alleging that it was Angeles who had orchestrated and manipulated all infractions related to the implementation of the San Jose Communal Irrigation System Project. The case was docketed as OMB-L-A-08-0272-D. 9
Acting on Angeles' letter-complaint, the Deputy Ombudsman requested the Commission on Audit (COA) to conduct a special audit on the project. The COA found that funds had been diverted from the rehabilitation of the existing San Jose Communal Irrigation System which deprived the intended farmer-beneficiaries of water. There was also misrepresentation of facts concerning the construction of the shallow tube wells. The documents show that these were to be installed at the intended beneficiaries' premises, but inspection revealed that they were installed in other sites. In addition, a technical evaluation of the reported accomplishment in the implementation of the shallow tube wells project showed an excess payment to the contractor in the amount of P13,349.42. The COA identified seven (7) persons liable for the irregularities, including Fernandez, Angeles, and respondent. Respondent was part of the team that approved and certified that the project was physically completed in accordance with National Irrigation Authority (NIA)-approved plans and technical specifications, and recommended payment for the project. 10 The Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office-Luzon (petitioner) consequently filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty and grave misconduct against said seven personnel identified by the COA, docketed as OMB-L-A-09-0367-G.
In its Joint Decision 11 dated June 9, 2014, the Deputy Ombudsman found all the seven respondents administratively liable for serious dishonesty and grave misconduct, and imposed upon them the penalty of dismissal from the service. The Deputy Ombudsman held that all of them showed a unity of mind and purpose as regards the following acts: (1) implementation of the project in three (3) different localities instead of only in San Jose; (2) change of the project from the rehabilitation of the existing San Jose Communal Irrigation System to construction of shallow tube wells; (3) change of six (6) of the seven (7) original beneficiaries; and (4) excess payment to the contractor of P13,349.42 representing cost of labor, fuel, and use of equipment for uninstalled pipes and casing. 12
As regards respondent, the joint decision held that as a member of the inspection team, he signed and issued the Certificate of Acceptance (Certificate) on July 27, 2006, and recommended payment for the project. The entire project was only for the San Jose Communal Irrigation System, but was implemented in two (2) other localities. This could not have escaped the inspection team's knowledge. Their act of issuing a false certification stating that the project was implemented only in the San Jose Communal Irrigation System to facilitate the release of payment for the project does not only constitute serious dishonesty, but also grave misconduct, as it prejudiced not only the San Jose Communal Irrigation System whose farmer-beneficiaries should have solely benefited from the project, but also the government in the amount of P13,349.42, which was overpaid to the contractor. 13
The dispositive portion of the Deputy Ombudsman's joint decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered finding x x x MANOLITO Y. MENDOZA, JR., x x x guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. Accordingly, respondents are hereby meted the penalty of Dismissal from the Service with all its accessory penalties pursuant to Section 10, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07 as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 in relation to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6770.
In the event that the penalty of Dismissal can no longer be enforced due to respondents' separation from the service, the same shall be converted into a Fine in the amount equivalent to respondents' respective salaries for one (1) year, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondents' retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their office. It shall be understood that the accessory penalties attached to the principal penalty of Dismissal shall continue to be imposed.
xxx xxx xxx
SO DECIDED.14
Respondent's motions for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation having been denied, he filed a petition for review with the CA.
On March 7, 2016, the CA rendered the assailed Decision finding respondent administratively liable for simple misconduct only, and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension for three (3) months. 15
The CA held that what was required of respondent as a member of the three-man inspection team was to verify if, indeed, the seven (7) shallow tube wells and seven (7) pumps had been constructed and installed according to the revised plan. Since that had been the case, then there was no reason for respondent not to sign the Certificate and Report. The CA did not consider as dishonest respondent's failure to indicate in the Certificate and Report that the project was fully implemented, but in different localities, ruling that respondent merely followed the chairman or team leader. The CA held that failing to correct the mistakes of one's superiors does not automatically connote dishonesty. 16
Likewise, according to the CA, respondent's acts cannot be considered grave misconduct since no proof of corruption or intent to violate the law was adduced against him. Respondent had no hand in the change of the beneficiaries of the project, which entailed a change in locations. No proof of ulterior motive or purpose was established against him. 17 However, respondent should have been more circumspect in his actions. His nonchalance in signing the Certificate and Report, despite possible knowledge that they did not reflect the true and actual localities in which the project was implemented, constituted simple misconduct. 18
The dispositive portion of the CA decision states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed dispositions are MODIFIED in so far as [respondent] Manolito Mendoza, Jr. is concerned in that, instead of Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct[,] and the penalty of Dismissal from Service, this Court finds him guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposes upon him the penalty of Suspension for three (3) months. No costs.
SO ORDERED.19
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed the present petition alleging reversible error on the part of the CA in finding respondent liable only for simple misconduct. Petitioner argues that respondent's position calls for the exercise of discretion in evaluating whether the project was compliant with the contract terms and in signing the papers submitted to him. Hence, he cannot claim that he merely relied on the documents accomplished by other local officials in signing off the project. Respondent also had knowledge of the change in the project since he was part of the bidding process. 20 In addition, the Deputy Ombudsman found conspiracy among respondent and his co-respondents in the administrative case in misusing public funds. 21 Petitioner thus prays for the Court to affirm the joint decision of the Deputy Ombudsman which found respondent guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct. 22
We grant the petition.
The Constitution mandates that public office is a public trust. 23 Only those who can live up to such an exacting standard deserve the honor of continuing in public service. 24
Here, respondent's actions should not be taken in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire factual backdrop of the administrative complaints. What transpired was a fraudulent scheme in which every step of the process aligned with each other, culminating in the inspection team's questionable acts that lent it a semblance of legitimacy. It must be noted that the case arose from a letter-complaint from one of the respondents in the administrative case, requesting the Ombudsman to investigate a "ghost project." 25 Respondent himself had admitted his faults, although was quick to deny intention to do wrong. To the mind of the Court, simple misconduct simply does not capture the offense he committed.
The record bears that the original approved project was the construction of a communal irrigation system, dubbed as the San Jose Communal Irrigation System Project. However, upon request of the San Jose Irrigators Association to the NIA, the project was revised so that, instead of a communal irrigation system, shallow tube wells and pumps would be constructed. The name of the project, its cost and location, however, remained the same. 26 The bidding for the project and the ensuing incidents leading to the project implementation would have appeared above board, were it not for the letter-complaint of Angeles to the Ombudsman and the anonymous complaint lodged with Imbestigador, 27 a national television investigative program that features crime and corruption in government, outlining some irregularities in the project. Ultimately, administrative complaints were filed, culminating in the Deputy Ombudsman's decision to dismiss seven personnel from the Bataan PIMO on account of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct. It is essential to describe the participation of each of the seven (7) respondents in the administrative complaints, as found by the Deputy Ombudsman, in order to place respondent's acts in perspective.
Agnes M. Aure, the Institutional Development Officer of the Bataan PIMO, was tasked to screen the farmer-beneficiaries. After choosing the qualified ones, she was to ensure that they were awarded the project. There had been seven (7) farmers originally identified to benefit from the project, but only one (1) of them was retained in the project's implementation, for reasons known only to the respondents in the administrative complaints. Six (6) had been replaced by other people from other localities, but the names of the original beneficiaries were retained in the official receipts. Aure was tagged as the person who asked her officemates to sign on top of the names of the original beneficiaries in the Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs). 28
Angeles issued official receipts in the names of the original beneficiaries, six (6) of whom were not actual beneficiaries. 29 She claimed to have done this upon the instruction of Fernandez. 30
Fernandez, the highest official in the Bataan PIMO involved in the irregularities, signed and submitted to the Regional Irrigation Manager MOAs under the names of the original beneficiaries and not the actual ones, except for one.
Riguer, together with the members of the inspection team, namely Angelito Lintag, Alexander F. Novilla, and respondent, signed the Certificate and Report showing that the project was physically completed in accordance with NIA-approved plans and technical specifications. The Deputy Ombudsman held that the team conducted an ocular inspection, so it could not have escaped their knowledge that the project was done not only in San Jose, but also in two (2) other localities, namely, Mangiba and Basada. Their act of issuing documents indicating that the project was done only in San Jose, in order to facilitate release of payment for the project, constitutes serious dishonesty and grave misconduct. 31
As can readily be gleaned from the foregoing, respondent's acts fit perfectly into the scheme. They matched with the intention of the other players to make it appear that the project was completed in accordance with the NIA-approved plan involving the original beneficiaries and specific location of the project. Substantial deviations from the project would not have justified payment to the contractor. Hence, the Certificate and Report issued by the inspection team and signed by respondent were crucial. Since they showed that everything was in order, without mention whatsoever that the project was implemented in different locations, the contractor was consequentially paid and the project subsequently concluded. In fact, if there had been no whistleblower in the person of Angeles who brought the matter up with the Deputy Ombudsman, the entire scheme would have remained under wraps, to the prejudice of the government.
A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint. 32
There is substantial evidence in this case to sustain the Deputy Ombudsman's finding that respondent should be held administratively liable for serious dishonesty. Serious dishonesty is present when the respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment. 33 We cannot subscribe to the CA's finding that respondent was a mere follower who followed his team leader in signing the Certificate and Report, and that the inspection team's failure to report the project's implementation in different localities did not connote dishonesty since there was no disposition to lie. 34 The fact is that the Certificate and Report signed by respondent contained false information as they did not reflect the correct locations in which the project was implemented. The inspection team could not have overlooked this aspect, especially since they had supposedly conducted an ocular inspection of the project sites. The circumstance that such false information harmonized with the other anomalous acts attributed to the respondents in the administrative complaints evinces that the false statements in the Certificate and Report were intentionally made.
Likewise, there is substantial evidence to hold respondent administratively liable for grave misconduct.
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It is an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. 35 There are two (2) types of misconduct, namely: grave misconduct and simple misconduct. Grave misconduct is distinguished from simple misconduct by the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. 36
The CA held that there was no proof of corruption or any intent on the part of respondent to violate the law. His only mistake was that he signed the Certificate and Report as a member of the inspection team without making sure that the same reflected the actual localities where the shallow tube wells were installed. 37 Respondent himself argues that if undue injury was caused to the beneficiaries and the government, those were already committed even before he took part in the project, or even without his participation, and that he could not have caused undue injury to any party by merely certifying that the project was completely implemented. 38
The Court does not agree.
Respondent's signature in the Certificate and Report are not inconsequential, nor are they separable from the acts of all the other respondents in the administrative complaints. It may be true that respondent had no hand in the change of location or change in the beneficiaries of the project. His signatures, however, served to affirm that the project was completed in accordance with the approved plan, and thus enabled the concealment of the anomalous deviations from the approved plan.
As a result of the changes, the original beneficiaries from the San Jose Communal Irrigation System, except for one, did not benefit from the constructed shallow tube wells and pumps. Instead, since they were replaced, other people who were not the intended beneficiaries of the approved plan were served by the project. Whether the substitute beneficiaries were persons with real of contrived identities is unknown. But one thing obvious is that there would not have been any deviations in the project in the first place if they were not meant to benefit a person or group of persons other than the original beneficiaries. The scheme evinced that someone else had intended to benefit from the project. Respondent's signature in the Certificate and Report had helped achieve that purpose. Notably, the Deputy Ombudsman also held that the original beneficiaries were not the only one's prejudiced by the scheme, but also the government which overpaid P13,349.42 to the contractor. 39 The circumstances indubitably satisfy the definition of corruption as an element of grave misconduct, which consists in the official's unlawful and wrongful use of his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. 40
In sum, substantial evidence supports the Deputy Ombudsman's finding that respondent is guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct. We quote with favor the Deputy Ombudsman's parting words:
Taken together, respondents' concerted acts clearly made a mockery of the official documents involved and did not only taint the integrity of the concerned public officials, but also of public service. To condone said acts would be tantamount to tolerating illegal and dishonest acts, and allowing false entries in official documents, which are supposed to contain true and genuine narration of facts and entries, the effects of which are perilous to public service. 41
To reinstate respondent to his former position with full back wages would likewise make a mockery of the fundamental rule that public office is a public trust, and would render futile the constitutional dictates on the promotion of morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness and courtesy in the government service. 42
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' March 7, 2016 Decision and June 2, 2016 Resolution, in CA-G.R. SP No. 139691 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The June 9, 2014 Joint Decision of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon in OMB-L-A-08-0272-D and OMB-L-A-09-0367-G, finding respondent Manolito Y. Mendoza, Jr. administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Gaerlan, J., took no part; Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated May 12, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-49.
2.Id. at 12-27; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
3.Id. at 29-30.
4.Id. at 14-15.
5. CA rollo, p. 99.
6.Id. at 100.
7.Rollo, p. 15.
8.Id. at 91-92.
9.Id. at 80-81.
10.Id. at 92-95.
11.Id. at 77-115. OMB-L-A-09-0367-G was decided jointly with OMB-L-A-08-0272-D, the complaint for dishonesty and grave misconduct filed by Fernandez against Angeles.
12.Id. at 105-106.
13.Id. at 106, 110-111.
14.Id. at 112-113.
15.Id. at 26.
16.Id. at 23-24.
17.Id. at 25.
18.Id. at 26.
19.Id. at 26-27.
20.Id. at 44.
21.Id. at 46.
22.Id. at 48.
23. 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Sec. 1.
24.Chairman Duque III v. Veloso, 688 Phil. 318, 323 (2012).
25.Rollo, p. 79.
26.Id. at 13-14.
27.Id. at 83.
28.Id. at 109-111; CA rollo, pp. 87-91, 92-95 and 96-98.
29.Id. at 106.
30.Id. at 108.
31.Id. at 110.
32.Fajardo v. Corral, 813 Phil. 149, 156 (2017).
33.Id. at 157.
34.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
35.Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman v. Castillo, 794 Phil. 53, 61-62 (2016).
36.Id. at 62.
37.Rollo, p. 25.
38.Id. at 151.
39.Id. at 111.
40.Amit v. Commission on Audit, 699 Phil. 9, 26 (2012).
41.Rollo, pp. 111-112.
42.City Mayor of Zamboanga v. Court of Appeals, 261 Phil. 936, 945 (1990).