GR 249834; (January, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 249834 , January 19, 2021
Dominic Melecio M. Toledo, Wilfredo J. Agcaoili, Ferdinand H. Munsayac, Teddy J. Sebastian, Marie Tess B. Gaspar, James S. Galang, Christian J. Adina, Petitioners, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Cesario D. Gabriel and Arnold B. Bareng, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were officers of Barangay Suyo (30-A), Laoag City, with Toledo as Barangay Chairman and the others as Councilors, Treasurer, and Secretary. Private respondent Cesario D. Gabriel, a resident and political competitor of Toledo, filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against petitioners before the Office of the Ombudsman (docketed as OMB-L-A-15-0268). The complaint alleged that petitioners falsified Barangay Resolution No. 10, series of 2014, which revoked certain fee impositions in the barangay’s Revenue Code. Co-respondent Arnold B. Bareng, a Barangay Councilor, claimed the resolution was fake, as it was not passed during the November 16, 2014 session, and the signature beside his name in the minutes was not his. A related criminal case for falsification (Criminal Case No. 17756-16) was filed. Petitioners argued that the revocation of fees was deliberated in sessions on September 21, October 5, and November 16, 2014, and that Bareng admitted in his court testimony to participating in these deliberations. The Ombudsman found petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered their dismissal with accessory penalties. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ subsequent petition for certiorari, citing the wrong remedy (should have been a petition for review under Rule 43) and procedural deficiencies. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds and whether the Office of the Ombudsman correctly found petitioners administratively liable for Grave Misconduct based on the alleged falsification of Barangay Resolution No. 10.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s Decision and Order, and dismissed the complaint for Grave Misconduct against petitioners.
The Court held that while the CA correctly noted the procedural error in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 43, a liberal application of procedural rules was warranted. The merits of the case showed petitioners were not liable for Grave Misconduct. The evidence, including the minutes of barangay sessions and Bareng’s testimony in the related criminal case, established that the revocation of the quarry and fishing gadget fees was discussed and deliberated upon by the barangay council. The RTC, in dismissing the criminal case via a Demurrer to Evidence, found that Resolution No. 10 was not falsified. Grave Misconduct requires a wrongful intent to violate the law or a conscious disregard of duty. Here, petitioners acted in accordance with their duties and the law, as the power to impose such fees actually resides with the provincial government under the Local Government Code. Thus, there was no basis for the administrative charge.