G.R. No. 191712 September 17, 2014
EDITA S. BUENO and MILAGROS E. QUINAJON, Petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NAPOLEON S. RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RAÑA and ROMEO G. REFRUTO, Respondents.

FACTS

On February 13, 1998, former NEA Administrator Teodorico P. Sanchez issued a memorandum providing that all board members, general managers, and employees of electric cooperatives (ECs) shall be considered automatically resigned upon filing their Certificates of Candidacy. On February 9, 2001, petitioner Edita S. Bueno, then NEA Deputy Administrator, issued a similar memorandum. On June 25, 2001, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 115 stating these memoranda were invalid as they were not promulgated by the NEA Board of Administrators nor filed with the UP Law Center as required. The NEA Board later ratified the 1998 memorandum via Resolution No. 56 on May 27, 2004, and it was published in the Official Gazette on March 21, 2005.
Private respondents filed complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioners Bueno (then NEA Administrator) and Milagros E. Quinajon (Director of NEA’s Institutional Development Department) for Gross Neglect of Duty and violation of RA 6713. They alleged that despite the OGCC opinion, petitioners continued to implement the invalid memoranda, citing the case of Alejandro Ranchez, Jr., a director of Ilocos Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (INEC), who was deemed automatically resigned after his wife was elected Sangguniang Bayan member. Petitioners denied neglect, arguing the memoranda were later ratified. The Ombudsman found petitioners guilty of violating Section 5(a) of RA 6713 for failing to act promptly on Ranchez’s letters and requests. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioners administratively liable for violation of Section 5(a) of RA 6713.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s factual findings are generally conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners were found to have violated Section 5(a) of RA 6713, which requires public officials to act promptly on letters and requests. The evidence showed that despite Ranchez’s repeated letters seeking reconsideration and deferment of the implementation of the memoranda, petitioners failed to act on them with reasonable dispatch. Specifically, Ranchez’s petition for review before the NEA Board was not included in the agenda upon instructions of Administrator Bueno, and Director Quinajon failed to act on the favorable recommendation from the NEA Legal Office regarding Ranchez’s case. This constituted a violation of the duty to act promptly. The Court rejected petitioners’ defenses, noting that the subsequent ratification of the memoranda did not cure their prior invalid issuance, and their continued implementation despite the OGCC opinion demonstrated a disregard for proper procedure. The lack of bad faith or malice does not exculpate them from administrative liability under RA 6713.