GR 176409; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176409; February 27, 2008
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. ROLANDO S. MIEDES, SR., respondent.
FACTS
A complaint was filed concerning the purchase of 19 cellular phone units by the Municipal Government of Carmen, Davao del Norte, without public bidding and through an unauthorized distributor. The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (OMB-MIN) filed an administrative complaint for Simple Misconduct against the municipal Bids and Awards Committee members, including respondent Rolando S. Miedes, Sr. The Ombudsman, while dismissing the criminal aspect, found substantial evidence for Simple Misconduct and imposed a three-month suspension without pay.
Respondent Miedes filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed the finding of Simple Misconduct but reduced the penalty to a one-month suspension, reasoning that the act was not motivated by any corrupt or wrongful motive. The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion for Intervention and Partial Reconsideration, which the CA denied. The Ombudsman thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in further reducing the penalty for Simple Misconduct from three months to one month based on the absence of corrupt motive.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the Ombudsman’s original penalty of a three-month suspension. The Court clarified the proper application of the mitigating circumstance of lack of corrupt motive. In administrative cases, the presence of corrupt intent distinguishes Grave Misconduct from Simple Misconduct. The absence of such corrupt motive was already considered and applied when the Ombudsman downgraded the offense from the more severe Grave Misconduct to the lesser Simple Misconduct.
This same absence of corrupt motive cannot be used a second time to further mitigate the prescribed penalty for the confirmed offense of Simple Misconduct. To allow its re-application would grant the respondent a double benefit from a single mitigating circumstance, which is not permissible. The penalty for Simple Misconduct under relevant civil service rules ranges from one month and one day to six months suspension. The Ombudsman’s imposition of a three-month suspension, which is within the medium period, was appropriate and should not have been disturbed. The CA therefore erred in modifying the penalty. The Court also noted that the CA acted arbitrarily in denying the Ombudsman’s motion for intervention, as the Ombudsman, being the prevailing party in the administrative proceeding, had a direct legal interest in the appeal concerning the penalty it imposed.