GR 172637; (April, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172637 April 22, 2015
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-VISAYAS AND EMILY ROSE KO LIM CHAO, Petitioners, vs. MARY ANN T. CASTRO, Respondent.
FACTS
Sometime in 2001, Mariven Castro purchased a vehicle on credit from KD Surplus, owned by Emily Rose Ko Lim Chao, issuing post-dated checks that were later dishonored. On September 16, 2002, Mariven’s wife, Rosefil Castro, accompanied by his sister, respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro, brought the vehicle to KD Surplus for appraisal. Emily refused to accept it due to its poor condition. Rosefil requested the security guard, Mercedito Guia, to log the vehicle’s entry. Guia made an inserted entry in the logbook, which Rosefil signed. The respondent left but returned shortly on board a Philippine National Police-Special Weapons and Tactics (PNP-SWAT) vehicle. She signed the logbook entry as a witness, took the logbook outside to photocopy it, and returned it. She also pressured Emily to sign a document and return the checks, threatening to file cases against Emily and her staff if they did not comply. Emily filed an administrative complaint for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees ( R.A. No. 6713 ) against the respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. The Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended her for three months without pay. The Court of Appeals modified the ruling, finding her liable only for simple misconduct and reducing the suspension to one month and one day. The Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for using her position as Assistant City Prosecutor to summon and ride a PNP-SWAT vehicle for a personal matter, thereby harassing a private citizen.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the respondent was not denied due process, as she was apprised of the charges and given an opportunity to explain her side through her counter-affidavit. The Court found the respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Her acts of summoning the elite PNP-SWAT team and riding their vehicle on two occasions to KD Surplus for a purely personal matter constituted an abuse of authority and a display of arrogance, exploiting her public office’s influence to intimidate and harass a private citizen. This behavior tarnished the integrity of public service. The Court modified the penalty, imposing a suspension from service for six months and one day.