G.R. No. 129124 March 15, 2002
Renato A. Tapiador, petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint-affidavit dated July 4, 1994, filed by U.S. citizen Walter H. Beck with the Resident Ombudsman at the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) against petitioner Renato A. Tapiador, a BID Special Investigator. Beck alleged that Tapiador demanded and received P10,000.00 from him in exchange for issuing an alien certificate of registration (ACR) and later withheld it, demanding an additional P7,000.00 for its release. An affidavit by Purisima C. Terencio corroborated the payment. Tapiador denied the allegations in his counter-affidavit, stating that Beck and his wife shouted invectives at him when advised to complete visa requirements, prompting Tapiador to file a criminal complaint for oral defamation. His allegations were corroborated by a BID employee. After investigation, BID Resident Ombudsman Ronaldo P. Ledesma recommended filing criminal and administrative charges. The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal charge for lack of evidence but found Tapiador administratively liable for grave misconduct, imposing the penalty of dismissal. Tapiador’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Office of the Ombudsman erred in finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and dismissing him from government service, considering the alleged lack of substantial evidence, violation of procedural due process, and the Ombudsman’s authority to impose such penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order. The Court ordered Tapiador’s immediate reinstatement to his position in the BID without loss of salaries and benefits. The Court held that the complainant failed to prove the allegations by substantial evidence. The affidavits of Beck and Terencio were not identified by the affiants during the fact-finding investigation or preliminary investigation, making them hearsay and inadmissible. Beck’s affidavit did not categorically state that Tapiador personally demanded money, and it was silent on who received the payment. Terencio’s affidavit was inconsistent and did not clearly identify Tapiador as the recipient. The Ombudsman’s resolution was based solely on these unverified affidavits, without a preliminary conference or hearing, violating procedural due process. Additionally, the Court noted that under Section 13(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution , the Ombudsman can only recommend removal, not directly dismiss a public official.