FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231730. November 20, 2017.]
ENGR. CESAR N. YU AND JOVITO F. TORRERO, petitioners, vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows: cSEDTC
"G.R. No. 231730 (Engr. Cesar N. Yu and Jovito F. Torrero v. Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao). — The entry of appearance of Atty. Eusebio M. Avila of Avila Tamayo Law Office, as collaborating counsel for petitioners, is NOTED and the request that copies of notices, resolutions, decisions and such other similar processes be furnished at Blk. 3 Lot 3, Iris I St., West Fairview, Quezon City, with urgent motion for leave of court to file and admit attached supplement to the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.
The Motion for Extension filed by petitioners Engr. Cesar N. Yu (Yu) and Jovito F. Torrero (Torrero) seeking an additional 30 days, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, is GRANTED.
After a careful review of the case, the Court resolves to AFFIRM in toto the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 06981-MIN, which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (Ombudsman) on the administrative aspect of the Complaint in OMB-M-A-11-359-H.
Findings of fact, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive upon appellate courts. Substantial evidence, in turn, is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 3
In this case, the Ombudsman and the CA correctly found that there was substantial evidence to prove that petitioners had flagrantly ignored established rules in procuring the generator set.
Petitioners brush aside the numerous irregularities that attended the procurement of the set, claiming lack of awareness of the law. A mistake of law cannot be used as a lawful justification, however, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. 4 Petitioners were not ordinary citizens, but government employees engaged in the procurement of supplies. They were presumed to be knowledgeable of the regulations and issuances directly pertaining to their duties, especially in this case when almost a year had elapsed from the effectivity of the Government Procurement Reform Act. 5
Further, petitioners do not deny their knowledge of other issuances 6 that prohibit the use of cash in the procurement of equipment. They only explained the need for them to resort to that method of payment. Their explanation exhibits a flagrant disregard of the established rules, which is an element constitutive of grave misconduct. 7
We therefore see no error on the part of the CA when it affirmed the findings of fact and the conclusions of the Ombudsman.
As to the delay in the Ombudsman's rendition of judgment, the law on public officers provides that administrative liability is separate from and independent of criminal liability. A simple act or omission can give rise to criminal, civil or administrative liability, each independently of the others. Thus, absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, and vice-versa. 8 Needless to say, the dismissal of the criminal case against petitioners does not affect the administrative case against them.
Further, petitioners failed to raise the issue of delay before the CA. Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, provides that a party may only resort to a petition for review on certiorari to appeal a judgment or final order or resolution of the CA. 9 As the issue of the Ombudsman's delay was not raised by petitioners before the CA, it was not passed upon by the appellate court. Hence, the issue of delay is not a proper subject of the petition before this Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-19; dated 4 April 2017; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring.
2.Id. at 264-270; docketed as OMB-M-A-11-359-H; dated 6 March 2015; penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Ma. Faith Llanto-Presbitero; reviewed by Director, Evaluation and Investigation Bureau — A Maria Iluminada S. Lapid-Viva; and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao Rodolfo M. Elman.
3.Office of the Ombudsman v. De Zosa, G.R. No. 205433, 21 January 2015.
4.In re Medado, 718 Phil. 286 (2013).
5. Republic Act No. 9184, approved 10 January 2003.
6. Government Auditing Code of the Philippines and the Commission on Audit (COA) Circular 97-002.
7.Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina, G.R. No. 213500, 15 March 2017.
8.Regidor, Jr. v. People, 598 Phil. 714 (2009).
9.Cadena v. Civil Service Commission, 679 Phil. 165 (2012).