G.R. Nos. 235274-75. October 13, 2021
HUMPHREY T. MONTEROSO, PETITIONER, VS. SPECIAL PANEL NO. 13-01-IAB, REPRESENTED BY DONABEL ATIENZA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Separate administrative complaints were filed against petitioner Humphrey T. Monteroso, former Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao. In OMB-C-A-13-0374, Spouses Jesus and Meljurena Osabel charged him with Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross Insubordination, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Their criminal complaint against city officials, filed in 2009 and assigned to Monteroso’s office, remained unresolved at the preliminary investigation level for two years despite follow-ups. Assistant Ombudsman Asryman T. Rafanan indorsed the complaint to Monteroso for action with a request for a response within seven days, but Monteroso failed to respond. A subsequent directive from the Public Assistance Bureau (PAB) of the Ombudsman, following a referral from the Office of the President, was also ignored. The complaint was eventually dismissed four years after filing. The Internal Affairs Board (IAB) investigated and found Monteroso liable for Simple Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, but exonerated him of Gross Insubordination. The IAB imposed a penalty equivalent to a nine-month suspension, but since Monteroso’s term had expired, it was converted to a fine equivalent to six months’ salary deductible from his benefits.
In OMB-C-A-13-0375, Emmanuel Arquellano and Amelia O. Peligro charged Monteroso with Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority. Arquellano alleged he was hired as Monteroso’s personal aide and house help, and was instructed to open bank accounts under his own name where large sums of money were deposited and withdrawn for Monteroso’s benefit. Peligro alleged Monteroso ordered her reassignment and initiated administrative cases against her after she refused his sexual advances and reported his misconduct. Monteroso denied the allegations, claiming Arquellano was merely a house help and the bank transactions were Arquellano’s own, and that Peligro’s reassignment was due to work performance. The IAB found Monteroso guilty of Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority, imposing the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from public office. Since Monteroso was no longer in service, the penalty was converted to a fine equivalent to one year’s salary. Monteroso filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner Humphrey T. Monteroso administratively liable and in imposing the corresponding penalties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s findings and penalties.
For OMB-C-A-13-0374, the Court affirmed the findings of Simple Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Monteroso, as head of OMB-MIN, had a duty to ensure the timely resolution of cases and to respond to communications. His failure to act on the Osabel complaint for years and to respond to official directives constituted neglect and conduct that eroded public trust in his office. His claim of being understaffed was not a valid excuse. The penalty imposed was within the Ombudsman’s discretion.
For OMB-C-A-13-0375, the Court affirmed the findings of Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority. The allegations of using a subordinate to funnel money through personal bank accounts and of retaliating against an employee for rejecting sexual advances, supported by substantial evidence, constituted serious offenses reflecting corruption and abuse of authority. The Ombudsman’s factual findings, based on its investigative authority, are accorded respect and finality. The penalties imposed—dismissal with accessory penalties, converted to a fine due to his separation from service—were appropriate for the gravity of the offenses.
The Court held that the Ombudsman acted within its jurisdiction and did not act arbitrarily. The decisions were supported by evidence and in accordance with law. The conversion of the penalty of dismissal to a fine after the respondent’s separation from service is in line with established jurisprudence.