G.R. No. 95393 and G.R. No. 103471, May 5, 1992.
RAUL H. SESBRENO, petitioner, vs. OSCAR E. ALA, REX V. TANTIONGCO, ALEJANDRO B. AFURONG, J. MARIO LAQUI, MARCELO N. FERNANDO, EMMA B. SUAREZ, NICOMEDES DEYNATA, MANUEL CUSTODIO, AND HON. CONRADO VASQUEZ, Ombudsman of the Philippines, respondents. (G.R. No. 95393)

RAUL H. SESBRENO, petitioner, vs. AVITO P. CAHIG, as authorized investigator of the Office of the Ombudsman, BIENVENIDO MABANTO and DARIO RAMA, JR., respondents. (G.R. No. 103471)

FACTS

These consolidated petitions for certiorari arose from the same events. On May 11, 1989, a Visayan Electric Company (VECO) inspection team inspected petitioner Raul H. Sesbreno’s electric meter at his residence and found it defective, with a terminal screw detached and the meter tilted 180 degrees. The meter was replaced. The inspection report was signed by a certain Chuchie Garcia as petitioner’s representative, as he was allegedly out. Petitioner was angered by the team’s reportedly high-handed manner. On May 19, 1989, ERB analyst Engr. Rey Ernesto Reyes tested the defective meter and reported the VECO seal was intact, its accuracy was 0.01% when upright, and the disc did not rotate when tilted 180 degrees. On August 21, 1989, petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Engr. Reyes with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), alleging Reyes failed to verify the meter’s removal without permission, did not deposit it with a neutral party, and conducted the test without notice. An ERB investigating committee recommended dismissal for lack of merit, and the full ERB issued a resolution dismissing the complaint in November 1989. Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against eight ERB personnel (the committee members and board members) for alleged violations of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act) and R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct). The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated April 18, 1990, dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, finding no direct evidence of conspiracy or a cover-up. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The second petition (G.R. No. 103471) relates to a complaint petitioner filed with the Ombudsman’s Visayas Office against Cebu City assistant prosecutors concerning the VECO inspection incident, which was also dismissed. Petitioner assails the Ombudsman’s resolutions and orders in both cases, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints against the ERB officials and the prosecutors for insufficiency of evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED both petitions for utter lack of merit. The Court held that the factual findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The principle is well-settled that findings of administrative agencies with expertise in specific matters are accorded respect and finality. After a careful study of the records, the Court found that the Ombudsman did not commit any abuse, much less grave abuse of discretion, in relying on the respondents’ theories as bases for the questioned resolutions or in concluding that the respondent officials were not liable under R.A. No. 6713 and R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman correctly found the allegations wanting in clear and direct evidence to support a prima facie case. The Court also noted that under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), no court shall hear any appeal against the Ombudsman’s decision except the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.