G.R. No. 184851 ; February 15, 2012
Valiente C. Villegas, Petitioner, vs. The Honorable Victor C. Fernandez, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Conrado S. Anciado, Jr., Rolly P. Danila, Andrei S. Arabi, and Jaime M. Baron, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Valiente Villegas obtained a building permit from respondent Conrado Anciado, Jr., Head of the Mandaluyong City Engineering Department, to improve the sidewalk and driveway fronting his house. After completion, the city implemented a road widening project. Other residents complied with demolition requests for encroachments, but complaints arose that Villegas’s perimeter fence also encroached on the sidewalk. Anciado notified Villegas of the encroachment, but Villegas disputed this, citing a prior survey showing his fence was within his property line. Anciado offered a re-survey, which Villegas refused, demanding instead the immediate completion of drainage and concreting works fronting his house.
Anciado proceeded with the re-survey, which confirmed the encroachment, and filed a complaint with the City Council. Villegas sought assistance from the Office of the Ombudsman. A conference was held where Anciado agreed to complete the works. Villegas later claimed Anciado failed to do so and filed an administrative complaint for neglect of duty against Anciado and other city engineering employees. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding the delay was due to the unresolved encroachment issue and Villegas’s refusal to cooperate with the re-survey, and noting the matter was pending before the City Council.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the administrative complaint for neglect of duty against the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. The factual findings of the Ombudsman, affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence. Here, substantial evidence showed the respondents were not administratively liable for neglect. The delay in completing the drainage and concreting works was justified due to the pending encroachment issue involving Villegas’s property. Completing the work without resolving the encroachment would have been impractical and wasteful, as it might require future demolition to install proper drainage. The respondents’ decision to await the resolution of the encroachment complaint before proceeding was a reasonable exercise of discretion, not neglect of duty. Furthermore, the Court agreed that mandamus was improper, as the act demanded was not purely ministerial but involved discretion, and the proper venue for such an action, if available, would be the Regional Trial Court under the principle of hierarchy of courts.