GR 143092; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143092 February 14, 2003
Teresita G. Fabian, petitioner, vs. Nestor V. Agustin, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Teresita Fabian, president of PROMAT Construction, filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Nestor Agustin, District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District (FMED) of the DPWH. She alleged that Agustin, leveraging his official position over her company’s government projects, persistently courted her, raped her, and maintained a coercive sexual relationship by threatening to hinder her business. She detailed a specific incident at a restaurant where Agustin, upon learning of her mastectomy, assaulted her. Agustin denied the allegations, claiming their meetings were professional and that Fabian initiated them to secure contracts, suggesting the complaint was filed to harass him after he refused her demands.
The Graft Investigation Officer found Agustin guilty of grave misconduct and immoral acts, ordering his dismissal. The Ombudsman modified this to a one-year suspension without pay. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s modified decision. Fabian then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s decision which modified the penalty from dismissal to a one-year suspension.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the penalty of dismissal. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s findings of fact, which established Agustin’s guilt, were supported by substantial evidence, including his own admissions in personal letters describing an intimate relationship. The legal error lay in the improper modification of the penalty. The Court ruled that the offenses of grave misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, and oppression, as defined under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, are grave offenses punishable by dismissal for the first offense. The Ombudsman’s reduction of the penalty to suspension constituted a reversible error. The Court emphasized that administrative penalties are imposed not merely as a punishment but to preserve public trust in government service. Agustin’s actions, exploiting his official authority for personal gratification and committing abusive acts, constituted a blatant betrayal of this trust, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits.