G.R. No. 237129 , December 09, 2020
Oliver B. Felix, Petitioner, vs. Julito D. Vitriolo, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Oliver B. Felix, a former faculty member of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), discovered that the National College of Physical Education (NCPE), which had a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with PLM for a physical education program, was not a CHED-recognized institution and its SEC registration had been revoked. On May 21, 2010 and June 29, 2010, Felix sent letters to respondent Julito D. Vitriolo, the Executive Director of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), requesting action and a certification regarding PLM’s alleged unauthorized programs, including the Expanded Tertiary Education Equivalency Accreditation Program (ETEEAP), and expressing concerns about “diploma-mill” operations. Vitriolo did not substantively act on these letters.
On May 19, 2011, Felix filed a complaint-affidavit against Vitriolo, which was treated by the Ombudsman for mediation. A mediation agreement was reached wherein Vitriolo promised to act on Felix’s letters within 30 days. Vitriolo later reported he had directed subordinate offices to investigate. Unsatisfied with the prolonged inaction, Felix sent another letter on June 30, 2014, and subsequently filed a second complaint-affidavit on June 30, 2015, accusing Vitriolo of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and violations of Sections 5(a), (c), and (d) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards).
In his defense, Vitriolo claimed he was not remiss and enumerated internal referrals and directives he issued to subordinate CHED offices starting in 2010 concerning Felix’s allegations.
The Office of the Ombudsman found Vitriolo liable for all charges and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Ombudsman held that Vitriolo violated Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713 by failing to respond to letters within 15 days, noting his first substantive reply to Felix’s 2010 letters came only on July 11, 2014. It also found violations of Sections 5(c) and (d) for failure to act expeditiously. The Ombudsman concluded that Vitriolo’s inaction, spanning years with only internal referrals and no conclusive investigation into the serious allegations of illegal academic operations, demonstrated gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, especially given his high-ranking position and statutory duties under the Higher Education Act.
The Court of Appeals modified the Ombudsman’s ruling. It found Vitriolo liable only for a simple violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713 (failure to respond within 15 days) and imposed a 30-day suspension. The CA held that the charge of gross neglect of duty was not substantiated because Vitriolo had, in fact, taken some internal actions by referring the matter to subordinate offices, and there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or a conscious disregard of duty.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman and in finding respondent Julito D. Vitriolo liable only for a simple violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713, instead of gross neglect of duty warranting dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court reinstated the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the Ombudsman, finding Vitriolo guilty of gross neglect of duty.
The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in confining its analysis to the violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713. The Court emphasized that Vitriolo’s failure to act on Felix’s letters for over four years was not a mere procedural lapse but constituted gross neglect of duty. Gross neglect is characterized by want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but with conscious indifference to consequences.
The Court found that Vitriolo, as CHED Executive Director, had a clear statutory duty under R.A. 7722 (the Higher Education Act) to monitor, evaluate, and impose sanctions on higher education institutions, including investigating serious allegations of “diploma-mill” operations. His role as a “clearing house” for communications and provider of public service demanded prompt and decisive action. His conduct—limited to internal referrals over a period of five years without any tangible result, conclusive investigation, or report to the complainant—demonstrated a blatant disregard of this duty. His inaction allowed the potential continuation of illegal academic programs, causing prejudice to the public interest. This constituted gross neglect of duty, which is a grave offense punishable by dismissal under the Civil Service Rules. The penalty imposed by the Ombudsman was therefore correct.