G.R. No. 201830 & G.R. No. 201882, November 10, 2015
Office of the Ombudsman, et al. vs. Roger F. Borja; Lerma S. Prudente and Damaso T. Ambray vs. Roger F. Borja

FACTS

In August 1991, the Board of Directors of San Pablo City Water District (SPCWD) dismissed division chiefs Evelyn Eje and Racquel Tolentino based on an administrative complaint filed by its General Manager, Roger F. Borja. The Civil Service Commission affirmed the dismissal, but the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated December 18, 1995, set aside the dismissal and awarded backwages and benefits. The CA ruled that the backwages could not be charged against SPCWD, as Borja, the public officer who caused the wrongful removal, was personally liable. This decision became final on March 27, 1996. On July 4, 1996, Eje and Tolentino were reinstated and paid their backwages from SPCWD’s funds upon Borja’s approval.
In 1999, a civil action was filed seeking to compel Borja and the SPCWD Board to reimburse the amount paid. The RTC, in a Decision dated May 26, 2000, ordered Borja to refund P1,942,031.82 to SPCWD, noting Borja was aware of his personal liability based on information from the Commission on Audit (COA). Borja was also criminally charged for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, but the RTC dismissed the complaints in 2008 based on the Ombudsman’s recommendation, citing a COA En Banc ruling that the payment was made in good faith.
In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against Borja and other SPCWD officers (OMB-L-A-03-1156-L), alleging they used public funds to settle Borja’s personal obligation. The Ombudsman, in a Decision dated November 27, 2007, found Borja guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended him for one year without pay. The Ombudsman found that Borja directed the release of SPCWD funds despite knowing of his personal liability. Borja’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Borja filed a petition before the CA, which, in a Decision dated October 26, 2011, reversed the Ombudsman, finding Borja acted in good faith based on the COA En Banc ruling. The CA reasoned that if Borja could not be held criminally liable due to good faith, he should not be held administratively liable. The Ombudsman and petitioners Lerma S. Prudente and Damaso T. Ambray (SPCWD Board members) filed separate petitions for review before the Supreme Court, which were consolidated.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the administrative complaint against Roger F. Borja.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the Ombudsman’s decision finding Borja administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The Court held that the CA’s 1995 decision, which became final and executory on March 27, 1996, explicitly ruled that the backwages were Borja’s personal liability and could not be charged to SPCWD. By causing SPCWD to pay, Borja contravened this final and immutable judgment. The doctrine of immutability of final judgments applies, founded on public policy.
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service pertains to acts that tarnish the image and integrity of the public office. Borja’s act of causing SPCWD to pay a substantial amount (P1,942,031.82) that was his personal liability placed SPCWD at a financial disadvantage and questioned the integrity of his office.
The dismissal of the criminal case against Borja is irrelevant to the administrative case. Criminal and administrative cases are separate, requiring different standards of proof: proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal conviction, versus substantial evidence for administrative liability. The elements for violation of the Anti-Graft law are distinct from what constitutes the administrative offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Therefore, Borja is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The penalty of one-year suspension without pay imposed by the Ombudsman is reinstated.