GR 221296; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 221296. February 22, 2017. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. NICASIO A. CONTI, Respondent.
FACTS
The Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman filed an administrative complaint for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against several Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Commissioners, including respondent Nicasio A. Conti. The complaint alleged that Resolution No. 2007-010, which authorized the lease of new vehicles for the PCGG via agreements with United Coconut Planters Bank in 2007 and 2009, violated laws requiring public bidding and prior appropriation of funds. The Ombudsman ordered the respondents to file counter-affidavits. While the other commissioners complied, Conti did not. Subsequently, the Ombudsman found all commissioners administratively liable and imposed a fine equivalent to six months’ salary.
Conti moved for reconsideration, claiming he was denied due process. He asserted he never received the Ombudsman’s order to file a counter-affidavit, as it was sent to an old address from which he had moved in 2006. He also stated he was already separated from the PCGG by August 2008 and learned of the cases only through news reports. The Ombudsman denied his motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman’s ruling, finding that Conti was deprived of due process and that the evidence did not substantiate the administrative charges against him.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent Conti was denied due process and in dismissing the administrative charges against him.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that Conti was indeed denied due process. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard and to present one’s case. The Ombudsman failed to properly notify Conti at his current address, sending the order to an outdated one. This failure deprived him of the chance to participate in the preliminary investigation and file a counter-affidavit. This defect was not cured by his subsequent motion for reconsideration, which was precisely filed to contest this deprivation. Without proper notice, the proceedings as to Conti were void.
On the substantive charges, the Court agreed with the CA that the Ombudsman’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. For Dishonesty, there was no proof of fraudulent intent or deliberate falsehood on Conti’s part in approving the resolution. For Grave Misconduct, which requires a wrongful intent, Conti’s reliance on the PCGG’s longstanding practice of leasing vehicles indicated good faith, not a conscious wrongdoing. For Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that his actions caused serious detriment to public service. The mere violation of a regulation, without proof of corrupt motive or substantial injury, does not automatically constitute this offense. The Ombudsman’s decision was therefore correctly set aside for lack of factual and legal basis.