GR 156286; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156286; August 13, 2008
MARITA C. BERNALDO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA), THE OMBUDMAN, and THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Marita C. Bernaldo, a DPWH Region III Project Engineer, was administratively charged for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charge stemmed from the Almacen River II dredging project, awarded to L.J. Cruz Construction. Bernaldo, along with other DPWH engineers, certified the project as 100% complete in a Statement of Work Accomplished and a Certificate of Final Inspection in August and September 1988, leading to the contractor being paid 93.58% of the contract price.
Subsequently, a DPWH Survey and Investigation Team reported that the actual work accomplished was only about 21%. A separate evaluation by a DPWH Senior Civil Engineer concluded that the equipment used could not have achieved full completion. Based on these reports, the Ombudsman found Bernaldo and others administratively liable, imposing a nine-month suspension without pay, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability against petitioner Bernaldo is supported by substantial evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals, finding the administrative charge against Bernaldo unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court emphasized that while administrative cases require only substantial evidence—relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate—the Ombudsman’s conclusion was based on speculation and conjecture.
The evidence against Bernaldo consisted of the survey team’s report and the engineer’s equipment evaluation. However, these reports did not specifically implicate Bernaldo’s personal conduct or demonstrate her failure to discharge her official duties. The Court noted that the testimonies of other engineers pertained to their own roles and did not establish Bernaldo’s culpability. There was no direct evidence showing she conspired to falsify documents or that she performed her certification in bad faith. Without such substantial evidence linking her to the alleged misconduct, the finding of administrative liability for conduct grossly prejudicial to the service could not stand. The Court thus absolved Bernaldo for lack of proof.