GR 233596; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 233596 , September 14, 2020
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. VLADIMIR L. TANCO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Leodegario Labao, Jr., a private contractor, filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against Capiz Governor Victor Tanco, Sr. and his son, respondent Vladimir Tanco, a provincial security officer. Labao alleged that after executing construction contracts with the province, respondent, upon his father’s instruction, demanded P3,000,000.00 for the release of subsequent payments, threatening to blacklist Labao’s company. Labao claimed he issued a check payable to respondent, which was later deposited, and that the governor nodded in approval during the transaction. The Ombudsman found both guilty, dismissing their defenses that the complaint was political harassment and that the check represented a personal loan from Labao to respondent.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability for Grave Misconduct against respondent Vladimir Tanco.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ruling emphasized that in administrative cases, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the evidence must be substantial. The Court found that Labao’s allegations were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. His sole testimony, alongside his foreman’s, lacked corroboration and was effectively retracted by a subsequent Affidavit of Desistance and Manifestation, wherein Labao recanted his accusations and stated the complaint was filed due to political differences. While affidavits of desistance are generally viewed with suspicion, the Court held that in this instance, absent proof it was unduly procured and considering it was executed without coercion two years after the complaint, it cast reasonable doubt on the initial charge. The Court reiterated that charges of grave misconduct require evidence derived from direct knowledge, not mere allegations. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s finding was based on insufficient proof, and the appellate court correctly absolved the respondent.