GR 144935; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144935 ; January 15, 2004
DR. MARCELO M. ALMANZOR AND VIENNA NANNY L. ALMANZOR, petitioners, vs. DR. BENITO S. FELIX, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioners, spouses and officials of the Technological University of the Philippines (TUP), were found guilty of simple misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman and suspended for six months without pay. The respondent, Dr. Benito Felix, a professor at TUP, filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners maliciously refused to sign his clearance, a prerequisite for collecting his proportionate vacation pay (PVP) for April and May 1999. This refusal allegedly caused a one-month delay in his receipt of the PVP, forcing him to borrow money. The petitioners countered that Dr. Almanzor, as Civil Security Officer, merely sought a clarificatory meeting with Felix regarding a security report about Felix’s alleged drunken and threatening behavior on campus before signing the clearance, a request Felix ignored. Mrs. Almanzor claimed her signature was ministerial and could be dispensed with.
The Ombudsman found that the petitioners refused to sign the clearance on multiple occasions despite directives from their superior, Director Federico Ramos, to do so. The Court of Appeals affirmed this finding. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the appellate court erred in affirming their conviction and in not ruling on whether the Ombudsman’s decision was immediately executory pending appeal.
ISSUE
The issues were: (1) whether the petitioners were liable for simple misconduct, and (2) whether the Ombudsman’s decision in an administrative case is immediately executory pending appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the first issue, the Court upheld the factual findings of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the petitioners unjustifiably refused to sign the clearance. Under Republic Act No. 6770 , the Ombudsman’s factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The petitioners’ claim of merely seeking a dialogue was belied by their repeated refusal to sign despite direct orders from a superior, constituting simple misconduct—an unlawful conduct prejudicial to the rights of others.
On the second issue, the Court declared the question on the immediate executability of the penalty moot and academic. The petitioners had already served the six-month suspension per a TUP Office Order. Since no temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court, and the appellate court had lifted its own, the penalty was duly implemented. Courts generally avoid deciding moot issues. Thus, the petition was denied.