G.R. No. 116798 September 16, 1997
DENIA C. BUTA, petitioner, vs. MANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO; REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, REGION X (Cagayan de Oro City), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Denia C. Buta, a public school teacher at Caloc-an Elementary School, was charged with oppression before the Office of the Ombudsman. Complainant Manuel M. Relampagos alleged that Buta refused to admit Walbit Sampayan for enrollment in her Grade VI class because Walbit’s mother, Loida Sampayan, was a witness in an electioneering case filed by Relampagos against Buta. This allegedly forced Loida to enroll her son at a different school in a nearby barangay.
Buta denied the charge, asserting she did not refuse enrollment but required Walbit to come to school first because classes were already in their second week and a visitor from the DECS Division Office was conducting a headcount of enrolled pupils. She presented a joint affidavit from ten of her pupils detailing that on June 22, 1992, Loida Sampayan came to enroll Walbit, who was not physically present. Buta asked where the child was and, upon learning he was still at home, stated she would enroll him later when he was present because their visitor was strict. Loida Sampayan then left murmuring.
The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao found Buta guilty of oppression and imposed an eight-month and one-day suspension, rejecting the joint affidavit as incompetent proof of a school policy requiring physical presence for enrollment. Buta filed this petition, contending the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner Denia C. Buta guilty of oppression for her act of requiring a late-enrolling pupil to be physically present before enrollment.

RULING

Yes, the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s resolution and dismissed the complaint against Buta.
The Court found that Buta’s act of requiring Walbit Sampayan’s physical presence before enrollment was not oppressive. Walbit was a late enrollee, as classes had been ongoing for two weeks. DECS Memorandum No. 101, s. 1992, enjoined all teachers and pupils to be in their classrooms on the first day of school and specifically disallowed late enrollment. Furthermore, pupils in Grades II to VI were considered tentatively enrolled at the end of the previous school year, and their enrollment needed validation. Buta had a valid reason to require Walbit’s presence for this validation, especially since a DECS visitor was conducting a headcount and no explanation was offered for the boy’s continued absence.
Oppression involves cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination, or excessive use of authority. Buta’s act, based on a valid school policy concern, did not constitute such cruelty or unjust hardship. The Court concluded the charge was baseless, noting that Loida Sampayan was not forced to enroll her son elsewhere; she chose to do so based on her own preconceived notion. The temporary restraining order issued against the Ombudsman’s resolution was made permanent.