GR 175201; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175201 , April 23, 2008
HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman found respondent Leopoldo F. Bungubung, Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Port District Office of Manila and Chairman of its Bids and Awards Committee, administratively liable for Grave Misconduct. The complaint was filed by Roberto Doromal, president of Combat Security & Executive Protection Agency (CSEPA), which had previously provided security services to PPA. Doromal alleged that Bungubung demanded and received monthly cash payments, termed “balato,” and even solicited a Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle as a condition for the continued award of the security service contract to CSEPA. Doromal supported his allegations with his own affidavit, the affidavit of his secretary Evalyn Cruz who claimed to have personally delivered money, and a purported “blue book” of CSEPA detailing the monthly payola recorded as representation expenses.
Bungubung denied the accusations, arguing the complaint was motivated by ill will after his agency lost in a subsequent bidding. The Ombudsman dismissed him from service with accessory penalties. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman’s ruling. The appellate court found the evidence insufficient, noting that the crucial “blue book” was not properly authenticated, the affidavits were uncorroborated, and Doromal failed to substantiate his claim of delivering P50,000. The CA held that the charges were not proven by substantial evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman and in ruling that the evidence was insufficient to hold Bungubung administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the Ombudsman’s decision, finding Bungubung guilty of Grave Misconduct. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Ombudsman are generally accorded respect and finality, especially when supported by substantial evidence. It held that the Court of Appeals overstepped its authority by re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own judgment.
The legal logic is anchored on the standard of proof in administrative cases: substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court found this standard met. Doromal’s detailed complaint-affidavit, corroborated by the affidavit of his secretary regarding a specific cash delivery, constituted direct evidence. The “blue book,” while a business record, further lent credence to the pattern of regular payments. Bungubung’s defense of denial and alleged ill motive of the complainant could not prevail over this positive evidence. The act of demanding and receiving money in connection with his official functions, particularly in the procurement process he chaired, constitutes Grave Misconduct, which involves a wrongful intention and a violation of established rules. Thus, the Ombudsman’s penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties was upheld as commensurate to the offense.