GR 161077; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161077 ; March 10, 2006
SAMSON B. BEDRUZ and EMMA C. LUNA, Petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, YOLANDA P. LIONGSON, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Samson B. Bedruz, the City Engineer, and Emma C. Luna, the City Administrator of Tagaytay City, approved a fencing permit application filed by the Suarez spouses. The application was supported by documents including a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) for a lot in Barrio Anuling, a barangay permit from Barangay Bagong Tubig, and a city planning office certification for a lot in Barangay Neogan. These documents contained conflicting data regarding the actual location of the subject lot. Despite these patent inconsistencies, petitioners issued Fencing Permit No. 23-99-55808. The fencing subsequently encroached upon a portion of a lot claimed by respondent Yolanda P. Liongson.
Respondent Liongson filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging petitioners violated ethical standards and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Deputy Ombudsman found petitioners administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioners are administratively liable for gross neglect of duty in issuing the fencing permit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The Court held that the factual findings of the Ombudsman, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. A review of the records confirms the Ombudsman’s finding that the supporting documents for the permit application contained glaring inconsistencies: the TCT indicated the lot was in Barrio Anuling, the barangay permit was for Bagong Tubig, and the city planning certification was for Barangay Neogan. Petitioners, as approving officers, exhibited gross neglect by issuing the permit despite these patent discrepancies on the face of the documents, which they were duty-bound to scrutinize.
The Court rejected petitioners’ defense of good faith reliance on subordinates under the Arias doctrine. That doctrine applies when the signing officer relies on the prior work of subordinates who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. Here, the irregularities were evident from the documents themselves, placing upon petitioners a higher degree of care and scrutiny. Their failure to observe this diligence constituted gross neglect of duty. The penalty imposed by the Ombudsman was thus proper.