G.R. No. 183507 , February 24, 2010
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO), Petitioner, vs. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA, Respondent.

FACTS

Anwar Mohamad Abdurasak and Jovina Tama Mohamad Abdurasak filed a petition before the Office of the Register of Deeds of General Santos City seeking the inclusion of the name “Ali Mohamad Abdurasak” in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-89456 and T-89458. Without authority from General Santos City Register of Deeds Asteria E. Cruzabra (respondent), land registration examiner Bienvenido Managuit instructed an office clerk to type the name on the face of the titles. Due to this unauthorized intercalation, Datu Sarip E. Andang filed a criminal complaint against respondent for falsification of public documents and usurpation of official functions before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (petitioner). In her Counter-Affidavit, respondent alleged that the intercalation was without her authority and occurred outside her cubicle; that upon learning about it, she did not correct it to avoid being charged with falsification; and that the proper parties to question the intercalation were those prejudiced. The Ombudsman Prosecutor found no probable cause for usurpation but recommended an administrative case for simple misconduct. Petitioner, through Deputy Ombudsman Antonio E. Valenzuela’s Order dated May 18, 2004, found respondent liable for neglect of duty and imposed a one-month suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding respondent not negligent but admonished her. Petitioner filed this Petition for Review, arguing its Order was final and unappealable.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability for neglect of duty against respondent, and whether the Ombudsman’s Order imposing a one-month suspension without pay is final and unappealable.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court held that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence. Petitioner’s Order finding respondent liable for neglect of duty was supported by substantial evidence. As Register of Deeds, respondent had a duty to direct and supervise her office’s activities, and she failed to show prudence and vigilance. Her inaction upon learning of the irregularity, justified by fear of a falsification charge, reflected indifference to her duties. Moreover, under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as amended, the Ombudsman’s Order imposing a penalty of suspension for not more than one month is final, executory, and unappealable. Thus, the Court of Appeals had no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify, or reverse the Order. The Ombudsman’s May 18, 2004 Order was reinstated.