GR 111304; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111304 June 17, 1994
NEMESIO ARTURO S. YABUT and RICARDO M. TAMARGO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and DR. PAUL DORAN, respondents.
FACTS
On February 16, 1993, petitioner Nemesio Arturo S. Yabut, the Vice Mayor and concurrent commander of the Traffic Management Division of Makati, was directing traffic at a congested intersection. Private respondent Dr. Paul Doran, an American national, was in his car waiting to turn. After a long wait, Doran asked Yabut why it took so long, to which Yabut replied, “Sorry, sir, its traffic.” Dissatisfied, Doran exclaimed, “who the hell are you,” and made a dirty finger sign at Yabut. An altercation ensued, leading to an exchange of punches. Yabut’s traffic aides, including petitioner Ricardo M. Tamargo, joined in, pulling Doran from his car and beating him until he was rescued. Both Yabut and Doran sustained injuries. Tamargo also shot two tires of Doran’s car. Doran filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which endorsed the case to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman initially imposed a 90-day preventive suspension on Yabut. After submission of affidavits and a memorandum by the parties, the investigating officer found petitioners guilty of simple misconduct and oppression. The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated June 28, 1993, recommended a two-month suspension without pay. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated July 29, 1993.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed an error of law or grave abuse of discretion in its factual findings and in imposing the penalty of a two-month suspension without pay on petitioners.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and not subject to appeal except on questions of law or upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no error of law or grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s resolution. The Court emphasized that while Doran’s provocative act was condemnable, it did not justify the petitioners’ reaction. As public officers, petitioners were expected to exercise strict personal discipline and act with the highest degree of responsibility, even under extreme provocation. The Court also ruled that the preventive suspension served by Yabut was not a penalty but a measure to ensure an impartial investigation and, therefore, should not be credited to the administrative penalty imposed. The penalty of a two-month suspension was deemed commensurate with the offense of simple misconduct and oppression.