G.R. No. 245855, August 16, 2023
ROMEO DC. RESULTA, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION OFFICE (PACPO)-LUZON, REPRESENTED BY MARIVIC B. DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On March 18, 2004, the President and CEO of Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (QUEDANCOR) issued Memorandum Circular No. 270, establishing the Consolidated Guidelines on QUEDANCOR Swine Program (CG-QSP), an affordable credit facility for swine raisers. Under the program, QUEDANCOR would issue purchase orders to approved farmer-borrowers, who would then present these to accredited input suppliers (Metro Livestock, Inc. and Global Swine Philippines, Inc. in Region IV) for delivery of swine inputs. Upon receipt, the borrower would sign an acknowledgment receipt, enabling the supplier to collect payment from QUEDANCOR equal to the loan amount.
On October 15, 2007, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit investigation on reported anomalies in the CG-QSP’s implementation in Region IV. The COA Report revealed multiple irregularities, including: non-compliance with public bidding laws; undue advantage given to input suppliers accredited without bidding and despite financial/technical incapacity; full release of loan proceeds to suppliers despite incomplete deliveries, based on delivery receipts pre-signed by borrowers; failure to properly monitor pull-outs/harvests; and questionable automatic offsetting of accounts receivable against accounts payable without proper records.
Based on the COA findings, a Complaint-Affidavit was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for violation of Republic Act No. 6713 against QUEDANCOR officials, including petitioner Romeo DC. Resulta in his capacity as District Supervisor for Tanauan, Batangas. Petitioner denied the charges, arguing he merely implemented the CG-QSP as mandated by management and that the offsetting procedure was done in good faith based on QUEDANCOR memorandum circulars.
The OMB rendered a Decision finding petitioner and others guilty of Grave Misconduct, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties. The OMB found petitioner grossly negligent in supervising and implementing the CG-QSP, allowing suppliers to collect despite incomplete deliveries, certifying expenses as necessary/lawful despite incomplete deliveries, allowing improper offsetting, and allowing pull-outs without proper authority. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was consolidated with another petition. The CA affirmed the OMB Decision and Consolidated Order in toto. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is guilty of Grave Misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and the Decision and Consolidated Order of the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner Romeo DC. Resulta was EXONERATED of the administrative charge of Grave Misconduct.
The Court held that the OMB and the CA erred in finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct. The elements of misconduct are: (1) the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling; (2) it must imply wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment; and (3) it must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties. For misconduct to be “grave,” it must involve corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be substantiated by substantial evidence.
The Court found that the acts attributed to petitioner did not constitute Grave Misconduct. The evidence failed to establish that petitioner acted with corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Petitioner, as a District Supervisor, was merely implementing the program guidelines and memorandum circulars issued by QUEDANCOR management. His actions were carried out in good faith pursuant to official directives. The alleged irregularities, such as the accreditation of suppliers and the offsetting procedures, were systemic issues stemming from management policies, not individual wrongful acts by petitioner. There was no substantial evidence showing petitioner personally benefited or acted with malicious intent. Therefore, the administrative liability could not stand.