GR 175349; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175349; June 22, 2010
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), Petitioner, vs. RODOLFO ZALDARRIAGA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rodolfo Zaldarriaga was the Municipal Treasurer of Lemery, Iloilo. In 1998, a Commission on Audit (COA) team audited his cash and accounts for the period ending November 16, 1998, and reported a cash shortage of ₱4,711,463.82. Based on this report, the COA filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas). Respondent contested the findings, arguing the audit was inaccurate and that the COA failed to provide a detailed bill of particulars. He also noted that a subsequent investigation by the Provincial Treasurer did not indicate a shortage.
A second COA audit was conducted for the period November 17, 1998 to May 25, 2000. This later audit, signed by a different state auditor, reported a zero cash shortage as of the end of the first audit period (November 16, 1998). Respondent moved for dismissal based on this subsequent report. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman dismissed him from service for dishonesty, holding him accountable for the funds and finding substantial evidence in the first audit report, while discounting the second report as inconclusive.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman correctly found respondent administratively liable for dishonesty based on substantial evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the Ombudsman’s decision. The Court emphasized that while administrative proceedings require only substantial evidence, such evidence must be more than a mere scintilla and must engender a reasonable certainty of the facts. Here, the veracity of the alleged shortage was not clearly and indubitably established due to the conflicting audit reports.
The first COA report found a substantial shortage but was criticized for lacking detailed validation. The second COA report, covering a later period but referencing the same cutoff date, found a zero balance. The Ombudsman dismissed this second report, speculating the shortage might have been restituted. The Court found this speculative reasoning insufficient to establish liability. The contradictory findings created a cloud of doubt, and the Ombudsman’s preference for the first report was not justified by clear and convincing evidence. A degree of moral certainty is required even in administrative cases. Since the evidence failed to meet this standard, the administrative charge could not stand. The petition was denied.