G.R. No. 229634 , January 15, 2020
ATTY. AROLF M. ANCHETA, PETITIONER, V. FELOMINO C. VILLA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by respondent Felomino C. Villa against petitioner Atty. Arolf M. Ancheta, a former Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and violation of R.A. 3019. Villa alleged that after he secured a writ of execution from Ancheta in a case where he was the winning party, the opposing party filed a Motion to Quash the writ. Villa later learned from rumors and DARAB employees that an Order dated May 18, 2011, granting the quashal of the writ (subject Order), had been issued by Ancheta and was secretly placed in the case records after Ancheta had already inhibited himself from the case on June 10, 2011. Ancheta denied the charges, arguing Villa’s claims were hearsay, the Order was unenforceable as it was not officially released, and Villa suffered no prejudice. The Ombudsman found Ancheta guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, imposing a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, reasoning that while no evidence linked him to the Order’s inclusion, his neglect in not tearing, piercing, or deleting the unofficial order after his inhibition led to the filing of the complaint. Ancheta’s motions for reconsideration were denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it outright for procedural defects: incorrect docket fee payment, failure to state the date of receipt of the assailed decision, filing a prohibited second motion for reconsideration (treated as such from his “Appeal to the Head Office”), and availing of the wrong remedy (Rule 65 instead of Rule 43). Ancheta filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition outright, and if so, whether Ancheta is administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, the CA erred in dismissing the petition outright. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Resolutions and Ombudsman rulings, and absolved Ancheta of administrative liability.
On the procedural grounds for dismissal:
1. Docket Fees: Ancheta immediately paid the shortage upon learning of it, showing no intent to defraud.
2. Failure to State Date of Receipt & Prohibited Second MR: While procedural irregularities, they do not warrant dismissal as litigations should be decided on merits, not technicalities, especially given the case’s substantial merits.
3. Wrong Remedy: The CA erred. Ancheta correctly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the Ombudsman’s findings in an administrative disciplinary case, as held in Camilon v. Office of the Ombudsman. A Rule 43 petition for review applies to appeals from quasi-judicial agencies’ decisions on substantial evidence, not to the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers reviewable under the substantial evidence rule via certiorari.
On the substantive issue of administrative liability:
The Supreme Court found the Ombudsman’s finding of Simple Neglect of Duty unsupported by substantial evidence. Neglect of duty requires a showing that the officer failed to perform a duty mandated by law. The Ombudsman’s conclusion was based on speculation that Ancheta “either neglected to tear or pierce the printed unofficial order, or delete the same in his computer files.” No evidence was presented to prove the Order’s existence, its preparation by Ancheta, or his negligence in handling it. Villa’s allegations were based on hearsay. The Ombudsman itself found no relevant evidence linking Ancheta to the Order’s inclusion. Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted that if Ancheta were biased, he would not have inhibited himself. Absent substantial evidence, the administrative complaint must fail.