AC 929; (January, 1974) (Digest)
A.C. No. 929, January 17, 1974
Vidal M. Tombo and Bonifacio R. Villacorta, complainants, vs. Enrique P. Medina, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, respondent.
FACTS
This is an administrative complaint filed against former Public Service Commissioner Enrique P. Medina, who had retired, accusing him of serious misconduct, gross negligence with manifest partiality, and bribery. The Supreme Court referred the case to Court of Appeals Justice Jose N. Leuterio for a thorough investigation. The charges primarily stemmed from Medina’s official actions concerning bus line operations, specifically the revocation of a provisional permit granted to Francisco Alvarez to operate the Carmona-Manila line. Complainants alleged that this revocation, which favored the Batangas, Laguna, Tayabas Bus Co. (BLTBCO), demonstrated partiality and misconduct. Further accusations involved an improper relationship with BLTBCO’s Chairman, Colonel Pelagio G. Potenciano, including allegations that Medina received gifts like a tractor and accessories.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to hold respondent Enrique P. Medina administratively liable for the charges of serious misconduct, gross negligence with manifest partiality, and bribery.
RULING
The Supreme Court, adopting the report and recommendation of Justice Leuterio, exonerated respondent Medina. The legal logic is anchored on the controlling standard for impeachment or removal proceedings in administrative cases, as established in In re Horrilleno: the charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, akin to the quantum of proof in criminal cases. Applying this stringent standard, the Court found the evidence insufficient.
Justice Leuterio’s exhaustive report concluded that the revocation of Alvarez’s provisional permit was legally justified. The permit was issued prematurely before the Commission acquired jurisdiction, and the application实质上 sought a controversial new line, not a mere terminal change. The decision was made collectively by the Commission en banc, including Associate Commissioners Cadiao and Panganiban, due to external pressure from executive officials advocating for Alvarez, not due to Medina’s partiality. Regarding the alleged improper relationship and bribery, the report found no credible evidence. The claim that Medina received a tractor and accessories from Potenciano was based on inference, not positive proof, and the circumstances indicated the items were purchased by another individual for personal use. The mere fact of occasional social golf games did not substantiate cronyism or corrupt influence. Consequently, failing to meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt, Medina was exonerated. The Court also clarified that the filing of the charges by the Department of Justice was done in good faith.