G.R. No. 182567 ; July 13, 2009
GUILLERMO M. TELMO, Petitioner, vs. LUCIANO M. BUSTAMANTE, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Luciano Bustamante, a co-owner of a lot in Naic, Cavite, filed a complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against petitioner Guillermo Telmo (the Municipal Engineer), Barangay Chairman Danilo Consumo, and a private individual. The complaint alleged that after a resurvey showed an encroachment by Telmo’s adjacent property, petitioner threatened respondent by stating that as long as he was Municipal Engineer, respondent would not be given a building permit to construct anything on his own lot. Subsequently, concrete poles erected by respondent on his property were destroyed. The complaint charged petitioner and the others with administrative offenses for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees ( Republic Act No. 6713 ).
In his defense, petitioner denied making the threatening statement. He asserted he was merely performing his official duty by insisting that any construction on the disputed area required a permit, as he believed the land had become government property due to a road easement from the construction of a national highway. He argued that respondent’s fencing obstructed access to the road for other residents. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found petitioner and the Barangay Chairman administratively liable, imposing a fine equivalent to six months’ salary on petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner administratively liable for violation of Republic Act No. 6713 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as its decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Court emphasized that in administrative cases, only substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion—is required. The Ombudsman found credible respondent’s allegation that petitioner uttered the threatening words, “Hangga’t ako ang municipal engineer ng Naic, Cavite, hindi kayo makakapagtayo ng anuman sa lupa n’yo; hindi ko kayo bibigyan ng building permit.”
This statement, made in the context of a property dispute, constituted a clear violation of Section 4(a) and (c) of R.A. No. 6713 , which mandate that public officials shall act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate or dispense undue favors. By wielding his official authority to threaten the denial of a permit based on a personal or property dispute, petitioner failed to remain true to the people, act with justness, and respect the rights of others. His defense of merely performing a duty was unavailing, as his threat preceded any formal application or official determination on the need for a permit, revealing an abuse of his official position to gain leverage in a private dispute. The penalty imposed was within the Ombudsman’s discretionary authority.