GR 205433; (January, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205433 , January 21, 2015
Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Avelino De Zosa and Bartolome Dela Cruz, Respondents.
FACTS
The Sangguniang Bayan of Kawit, Cavite authorized the sale of municipal properties. The Municipal Appraisal Board (MAB), including respondents Avelino De Zosa (Municipal Assessor) and Bartolome Dela Cruz (Municipal Engineer), issued MAB-Resolution No. 3-97, decreasing the assessed fair market value of the subject lands from ₱700 to ₱500 per square meter. Pursuant to this, Lot No. 4431 was auctioned and awarded to FJI Property Developers, Inc. at approximately ₱505.51 per sq. m. A subsequent Commission on Audit (COA) Report found the proper fair market value should have been ₱878.26 per sq. m., concluding the municipality suffered undue injury and unwarranted benefits were given to FJI. The Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against the MAB members, including respondents, alleging the reappraisal was done without any basis. Respondents defended that the reappraisal aimed to maintain uniform assessment for lands with similar attributes (e.g., 30 meters from the national road, agricultural/fishpond) and was based on the Cavite Provincial Assessment Board’s Resolution No. 10-96. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found respondents guilty of Grave Misconduct, imposing dismissal and penalties. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, exonerating respondents, finding no substantial evidence of corruption, willful intent, or disregard of established rules.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly absolved respondents from administrative liability for Grave Misconduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held there was no substantial evidence to hold respondents administratively liable for Grave Misconduct. Misconduct requires a transgression of an established rule; to be grave, it must be attended by corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. The records showed respondents did not act with wrongful intent. The passage of MAB-Resolution No. 3-97 had ample bases: to achieve uniform assessment for lands with similar attributes within the municipality, pursuant to the provincial board’s resolution. Therefore, respondents did not commit Grave Misconduct or even Simple Misconduct.