GR 251680; (November, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 251680. November 17, 2021
LUCIA MALICSE-HILARIA, PETITIONER, VS. IVENE D. REYES, JONNE L. ADANIEL, ALVARO B. NONAN, NILO L. SUBONG, AND CESAR S. GUARINO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Lucia Malicse-Hilaria is the heir of Castora Malicse, the registered owner under OCT No. CLOA-370 of Lot No. 2816. In January 2016, respondents, who were officials and employees of the DENR-PENRO Aklan, informed Hilaria that the lot was classified as timberland. She requested a certification on its status. On April 20, 2016, respondent Ivene D. Reyes issued a certification stating the survey details were held in abeyance. On May 20, 2016, Reyes issued another certification stating the lot was within timberland. Respondent Cesar S. Guarino later inspected the lot and asked Hilaria for PHP 25,000. Subsequently, on June 14, 2016, Reyes issued a certification stating only 516 sq. m. of the lot was alienable and disposable. When Hilaria and her cousin Vito Malicse followed up, respondents Jonne L. Adaniel and Nilo L. Subong demanded PHP 500,000 to reclassify the entire lot as alienable and disposable. Hilaria filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for violations of RA 3019 and RA 6713. The Ombudsman found all respondents guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision but later amended it, dismissing the charges against Adaniel, Alvaro B. Nonan, Subong, and Guarino, and initially affirming the charge against Reyes before also dismissing it. Hilaria filed the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the administrative charges against respondents Jonne L. Adaniel, Alvaro B. Nonan, Nilo L. Subong, and Cesar S. Guarino.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dated August 25, 2017. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The series of inconsistent certifications issued by respondents, coupled with the direct testimony of Hilaria and her cousin regarding the monetary demands, constituted substantial evidence of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court found the respondents’ defenses, including Guarino’s Daily Time Record, to be unconvincing and insufficient to overturn the Ombudsman’s factual conclusions. The penalty of dismissal imposed by the Ombudsman was affirmed.