G.R. No. 173268 ; August 23, 2012
ERNESTO A. FAJARDO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto A. Fajardo, a Clerk II designated as a Special Collecting Officer at the NAIA Customs House, was accused of failing to remit collections from the sale of accountable forms and documentary stamps. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit for the period January 2000 to October 2002 revealed a substantial discrepancy, with an Audit Observation Memorandum initially reporting an unremitted amount of ₱20,118,355.00. Further investigation by state auditors, culminating in sworn statements, indicated a total unremitted collection of ₱53,658,371.00. Based on these findings, an Information for Plunder was filed against Fajardo in the Regional Trial Court. Concurrently, the Office of the Ombudsman initiated an administrative case for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.
In his defense before the Ombudsman, Fajardo argued that the sale of customs forms did not automatically entail a sale of documentary stamps from the metering machine. He also challenged the validity of the audit process, claiming the Audit Observation Memorandum was not referred to the COA Legal and Adjudication Office as required by internal guidelines. The Ombudsman found him guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting Fajardo to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner administratively liable for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct based on the audit findings and evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The legal logic rests on the principle that in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion—is required. The audit reports and the sworn statements of the COA auditors constituted more than sufficient substantial evidence to establish the massive shortage in Fajardo’s collections and his failure to account for them despite demand.
The Court rejected Fajardo’s defenses. His technical argument separating the sale of forms from the sale of stamps was contradicted by the COA auditors’ detailed analysis, which showed a direct correlation proven by the accountable forms themselves. His challenge to the audit procedure was also unavailing; any alleged defect in the internal COA process did not invalidate the factual findings of the audit, which were established through competent evidence and sworn statements. The Ombudsman’s reliance on these audit findings was therefore proper. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the distinct nature of administrative liability, which proceeds independently from any criminal action for Plunder. The dismissal from service was a valid administrative penalty separate from the pending criminal case. Thus, finding no arbitrariness or capriciousness in the Ombudsman’s evaluation of evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the administrative penalty imposed.