G.R. No. 174826, April 8, 2008
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. ENGR. ALFONSO P. ESPIRITU, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Archie L. Huevos, a licensed building contractor doing business as A.H. Construction, entered into a contract with the Department of Health (DOH) for a construction project at the DOH-Amang Rodriguez Medical Center (DOH-ARMC) in Marikina City. The DOH-ARMC applied for a building permit with the Office of the City Engineer and Building Official, headed by respondent Alfonso P. Espiritu. In a letter dated September 7, 2000, respondent refused to act on the application, citing several reasons: (1) A.H. Construction had previously built a structure without a permit and in violation of the National Building Code; (2) that illegal structure obstructed a road widening project and was ordered demolished, but A.H. Construction did not immediately comply; (3) the project’s master plan included a waste water plant that would obstruct the roadway and an incinerator not allowed in Marikina City; and (4) A.H. Construction had been blacklisted by the city government. A.H. Construction appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), who, in a Decision dated September 14, 2001, found the appeal meritorious and directed the DOH-ARMC to refile its application, which the Building Official was to process upon full compliance with requirements. Respondent sought reconsideration, which was denied by the DPWH Secretary on February 13, 2001. The DOH-ARMC refiled its application on October 3, 2001, and respondent required the submission of A.H. Construction’s renewed business permit. A.H. Construction failed to submit this. On June 4, 2002, Huevos filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent for Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Ombudsman found respondent guilty of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed a six-month and one-day suspension. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, annulling the Ombudsman’s ruling and dismissing the complaint. The Office of the Ombudsman then filed this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman and in finding that there was no substantial evidence to hold respondent administratively liable for Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that there was no substantial evidence to hold respondent guilty of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court ruled that respondent, as City Engineer and Building Official, was duty-bound to enforce not only the National Building Code but also relevant local ordinances and policies, such as Marikina City’s prohibition on incinerators. His refusal to act on the permit application was based on these legal grounds and the applicant’s failure to comply with requirements, including the submission of a renewed business permit. The Court found that the DPWH Secretary’s decision did not automatically compel the issuance of the permit but required the applicant’s full compliance with all requirements first. Since A.H. Construction failed to submit its renewed business permit as required by respondent, the permit could not be issued. The Court concluded that respondent was merely performing his official duties faithfully and that his actions were justified under the circumstances. The complainant failed to substantiate the allegations with substantial evidence. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s decision was correctly overturned.