Marcelo vs. Bungubung
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
by this Court of the factual findings of the Ombudsman and Marcelo vs. Bungubung
the Court of Appeals.
Administrative Law; Administrative Proceedings; When
Same; Same; Within the field of administrative law, while
the findings of fact by the Ombudsman are not adequately
strict rules of evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial
supported by substantial evidence, they shall not be binding
proceedings, nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive
upon the courts.—The fundamental rule in administrative
of substantial evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is
proceedings is that the complainant has the burden of proving,
not evidence cannot be disregarded.—Being guided
by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint.
accordingly by the aforementioned evidentiary rules and
Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act is unequivocal: Findings
jurisprudence, this Court finds that the evidence on record in
of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by
the present case does not constitute substantial evidence of
substantial evidence are conclusive. Conversely, therefore,
Bungubung’s administrative culpability for grave misconduct.
when the findings of fact by the Ombudsman are not
Within the field of administrative law, while strict rules of
adequately supported by substantial evidence, they shall not
evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings,
be binding upon the courts. Such is the case in the present
nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of substantial
Petition.
evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence
Same; Substantial Evidence; The standard of substantial cannot be disregarded.
evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to
Evidence; In the case of contradictory declarations and
believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct
statements, greater weight is generally given to positive
complained of, even if such evidence might not be
testimonies than to mere denials.—In the absence of
overwhelming or even preponderant.—Substantial evidence,
corroborative evidence, the Court would not be prepared to
which is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant
accept the usual lame defense of denial over the
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
straightforward and positive declaration of a witness since
support a conclusion, would suffice to hold one
denials constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot
administratively liable. The standard of substantial evidence is
be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of
satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Thus, in
respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of,
the case of contradictory declarations and statements, greater
even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even
weight is generally given to positive testimonies than to mere
preponderant. While substantial evidence does not necessarily
denials.
import preponderance of evidence as is required in an
ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt as is Administrative Law; Affidavits of Desistance; In Gaviola v.
required in criminal cases, it should be enough for a Salcedo [428 SCRA 563 (2004)], which involved an
reasonable mind to support a conclusion. There is none here. administrative case for suspension or disbarment against a
lawyer, this Court gave probative value to the Affidavit of
591 Desistance of the complainant, pronouncing that while the
filing of an Affidavit of Desistance by the complainant for lack
VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 591 of interest does not ipso facto result in the termination of the
administrative case, it was constrained to dismiss the charges PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
since such charges cannot be proven without the evidence of resolution of the Court of Appeals.
the complainant and her witnesses.—In Gaviola v. Salcedo, The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
[428 SCRA 563 (2004)], which involved an administrative David, Tamayo & Cui-David Law Offices for
case for suspension or disbarment against a lawyer, this Court respondents.
gave probative value to the Affidavit of Desistance of the
complainant, pronouncing that while the filing of an Affidavit CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
of Desistance by the complainant for lack of interest does not This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
ipso facto result in the termination of the administrative case, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, whereby
it was constrained to dismiss the charges since such charges petitioner Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)
cannot be proven without the evidence of the complain- prays for the reversal of the Decision1 dated 30 June
2006 and Resolution2 dated 26 October 2006 of the
592 Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89689 which, in
turn, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s Orders
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
dated 11 January 2005 and 28 April 2005 in OMB-
ADM-0-01-
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
_______________
ant and her witnesses. Such is the case at bar. Essentially, the
1 Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle with Associate
administrative case against Bungubung was based on the
Justices Marina L. Buzon and Regalado E. Maambong concurring;
allegations made by Doromal in his Affidavit-Complaint,
Rollo, pp. 46-61.
without which, the case against Bungubung collapses.
2 Rollo, pp. 64-65.
Same; Administrative Complaints; As this Court
declared in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations [69 593
Phil. 635 (1940)], the assurance of a desirable flexibility in
administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 593
orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative
force.—After evaluating the totality of evidence on record, Marcelo vs. Bungubung
this Court reaches the inescapable conclusion that
complainant Doromal failed to present substantial evidence 0502. The Ombudsman found respondent Leopoldo F.
that Bungubung is administratively liable for grave Bungubung (Bungubung) administratively liable for
misconduct. As this Court declared in Ang Tibay v. Court of grave misconduct, dismissing him from the service and
Industrial Relations, [69 Phil. 635 (1940)], the assurance of a imposing the accessory penalties of cancellation of
desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and his
far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having perpetual disqualification from reemployment in
rational probative force. government service.
The Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo represented the 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ombudsman, with powers and functions provided Marcelo vs. Bungubung
under Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution
and the provisions of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise x x x x
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. 6. That after a service contract was signed by PPA and
Bungubung is the Manager of the Port District this agency on January 28, 1999, the Port District Manager of
Office (PDO) of Manila, Philippine Ports Authority PDO-Manila, Mr. Leopoldo Bungubung and other PPA
(PPA), South Harbor, Port Area, Manila. He is also the officials asked for certain amounts from my said wife as
Chairman of the Ports District Security Bids and “balato” for winning the award where (sic) the latter obliged
Awards Committee (PDSBAC) of the PPA. herself to give;
On 24 September 2001, Roberto C. Doromal 7. That initially, Mr. Leopoldo Bungubung and other
(Doromal), the President of Combat Security & PPA officials demanded amounts ranging from P10,000 a
Executive Protection Agency (CSEPA), a security month down to P2,000 for him (Bungubung) and his
agency that participated in the bidding for security subordinates, respectively; and my wife directed our staff,
services for the PPA, filed a Complaint-Affidavit3 dated particularly the Billing and Collection Clerk and Cashier to
7 September 2001 against Bungubung before PPA include in our records and books of account these
Resident Ombudsman Manolo M. Mabini, alleging as disbursements as “Representation expense”;
follows: 8. That when my late wife died on May 3, 2000, the
same arrangement was pursued and carried over through the
3. That sometime in June 1995, my aforesaid wife was
period that I was already the one dealing with PPA, and that,
instrumental in negotiating and concluding a contract for
sometime in late April 2000, when the security force was
Security Services with the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA),
increased to 184 Security guards at North Harbor-Special
more particularly at the Port District of Manila (PDO-Manila)
Take-Over Unit (STU), the amount demanded by Mr.
for two (2) years starting August 1, 1995;
Bungubung was also increased to P40,000 a month and
sometimes P50,000;
_______________
x x x x
3 Incidentally, Doromal also filed on 25 April 2001 a Petition for 10. That sometime in late February, 2001, one of office
Prohibition (rollo, pp. 107-133) with prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary staff received a telephone call from a certain Capt. Valenzuela
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) before the Regional of the Port Police Dept. of PPA and because I was not around,
Trial Court (RTC) of the National Capital Region (NCR), captioned as said Capt. Valenzuela left a message advising me to see Mr.
“Roberto C. Doromal, doing business under the firm name/style of Combat Leopoldo Bungubung for some important matters;
Security and Executive Protection Agency vs. Philippine Ports Authority, 11. That upon receipt of the advise (sic) from my office
Leopoldo F. Bungubung in his capacity as Port District Manager, PDC— staff, I went to PPA, with my secretary, Ms. Evalyn Cruz, to
Manila and as Chairman of PDS BAC and Alfonso G. Cusi and Star Special see Mr. Leopoldo Bungubung at his office located at old PNR
Watchman and Detective Agency,” docketed as Case No. 01100678. Bldg., South Harbor, Port Area, Manila and at the same time
personally delivered a sum of money amounting to P50,000 as
594 earlier requested by him (Bungubung).
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/36
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552
12. That during the course of my conversation with Mr. recorded therein as representation expenses. It was
Leopoldo Bungubung after giving the P50,000, he asked from allegedly prepared by a certain Evalyn M. Ebora
me a vehicle, Mitsubishi Pajero (late model) van, to be due (Ebora), and approved by Doromal.
and delivered supposedly to him in the middle part of March Thereafter, PPA Resident Ombudsman Mabini
2001 while there is no award of the winning bidder yet; and released a Memorandum/Investigation Report5 dated 25
that I asked the said Bid Committee Chairman, Mr. September 2001, recommending the following:
Bungubung to give me a grace period of two (2) months to
produce what he was asking from me. Unfortunately, a. That criminal complaint be filed against Mr. Leopoldo
however, due to the expensive value of the said Pajero van, I F. Bungubung for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019;
Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 and Art. 211 of the RPC for
595 demanding and receiving “balato” from COMBAT in the total
amount of P320,000 more or less;
VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 595 b. That likewise, an administrative complaint be filed
against Mr. Leopoldo F. Bungubung for Grave Misconduct
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
arising from the above criminal act;
was not able to deliver. Hence, on March 30, 2001, I was
served a Notice of Award of the winning bidder which is
_______________
STAR SPECIAL WATCHMAN & DETECTIVE AGENCY,
INC. an agency comparatively smaller than mine; 4 Rollo, pp. 318-319.
13. That taking a cue from the Pajero van being asked, I 5 CA Rollo, pp. 67-71.
instructed my men to conduct an investigation and there, they
found a late model Pajero van with Plate No. WLA-674 596
parked in front of the residence of Mr. Leopoldo Bungubung
and later verified to have been registered and transferred on 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
12 March 2001 under the name of Mr. Norman Vincent
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
Bungubung, son of Chairman Bungubung at #45 Buencamino
St., BF Homes, Parañaque City.”4
c. That Mr. Leopoldo F. Bungubung be placed under
In support of the allegations in his Complaint- Preventive Suspension for a period of six (6) months without
Affidavit, Doromal submitted an affidavit of his pay pursuant to Section 24 of R.A. 6770.
secretary Evalyn Cruz (Cruz) and an alleged “blue
From the foregoing, the following complaints were
book” of CSEPA. Cruz recounted in her affidavit
filed against Bungubung before the Ombudsman: (1) an
another incident wherein she personally handed over
administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct and
the amount of P50,000.00 cash to Bungubung at his
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service,
office on 16 January 2001. The CSEPA blue book
docketed as OMB-ADM-0-01-0502 (OMB-0-01-0793);
purportedly detailed monthly balato or payola paid to
and (2) a criminal complaint for violation of Section
PPA officials from July 2000 to February 2001,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/36
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552
3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, However, Ombudsman Marcelo disapproved Graft
docketed as OMB-0-01-0793. Investigation Officer II Fangon’s 28 November 2002
After the parties submitted the required pleadings, a Decision, and issued another Order8 dated 11 January
preliminary conference was held on 21 February 2002 2005 finding Bungubung liable for grave misconduct
in OMB-ADM-0-01-0502, the administrative case. (which absorbed the lesser offense of conduct
Bungubung manifested therein that he was submitting prejudicial to the best interest of the service) and
the case for resolution. Doromal, however, was still ordering Bungubung’s dismissal from service, together
undecided on whether to opt for the conduct of a formal with the accessory penalties of cancellation of
investigation or to submit the case for resolution at eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and
once. In a Manifestation filed on 25 February 2002, respondent’s perpetual disqualification from
Doromal informed the Ombudsman that he was opting reemployment in government service. The dispositive
instead for the conduct of a formal investigation for part of Ombudsman Marcelo’s 11 January 2005 Order
purposes of submission of evidence and affidavits of reads:
witnesses.6
Doromal’s aforecited manifestation notwithstanding, “WHEREFORE, the 28 November 2002 Decision
the Ombudsman, in an Order dated 6 March 2002, prepared by the former Administrative Adjudication Bureau
through Graft Investigation Officer II Joselito P. (AAB), this Office, recommending the dismissal (without
Fangon, ordered the submission of the case for prejudice to its re-filing) of the administrative complaint
resolution. against [Bungubung] is hereby DISAPPROVED.
The parties were then required to submit their Respondent LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG, Port District
respective Memoranda. Manager, Manila Port District, Philippine Ports Authority, is
On 28 November 2002, Graft Investigation Officer hereby found liable for Grave Misconduct and, as such, is
II Fangon drafted a Decision7 which recommended the DISMISSED from the service. The penalty of dismissal shall
dismissal of the administrative case against Bungubung, carry with it the accessory penalties of cancellation of
without prejudice to its re-filing. eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and
[Bungubung’s] perpetual disqualification from reemployment
in the government service.”
_______________
6 Rollo, p. 93.
In the interim, the Ombudsman issued an Order9
7 Annex “J” to the Petition for Review before the Court of
dated 10 September 2003 in OMB-0-01-0793, for the
Appeals, pp. 94-106.
filing of the criminal complaint against Bungubung,
after finding that there was probable cause to indict him
597 for violation of Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.10
VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 597
_______________
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
8 Rollo, pp. 84-87.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/36
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552
9 Page 2 of the 11 January 2005 Order of the Ombudsman. Bungubung then sought recourse to the Court of
10 Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the
3019, as amended) provides: 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, docketed as CA-G.R.
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to SP No. 89689. He asserted therein that the Ombudsman
acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, erred in (a) holding that there was substantial evidence
the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer to make him liable for grave misconduct, resulting in
and are hereby declared to be unlawful: his dismissal from service and imposition upon him of
the accessory penalties; and (b) ordering
598
_______________
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
x x x x
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
The Ombudsman took into consideration its present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other
aforementioned 10 September 2003 Order in OMB-0- person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
01-0793, when it found in OMB-ADM-0-01-0502 that Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his
Bungubung took advantage of his position as Chairman official capacity has to intervene under the law.
of the PDSBAC of the PPA, using it as leverage in 11 Rollo, pp. 39-59.
soliciting cash and a Mitsubishi Pajero van from the 12 Id., at pp. 88-92.
bidders as consideration for the award of the security
599
contract. According to the Ombudsman, such actuations
constitute conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. It rejected Bungubung’s denial VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 599
and instead gave credence to the attestation of Cruz that Marcelo vs. Bungubung
she personally delivered the P50,000.00 to Bungubung.
Bungubung filed a Motion for Reconsideration11 of
him dismissed from the service, when the Constitution
the 11 January 2005 Order of the Ombudsman in OMB-
merely empowered said office to make a
ADM-0-01-0502, but it was denied by the Ombudsman
recommendation of dismissal. Pending resolution of
in another Order12 dated 28 April 2005, to wit:
CA-G.R. SP No. 89689 by the Court of Appeals,
“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated 21 Bungubung filed therein a Motion for Issuance of a
January 2005 filed by respondent Leopoldo F. Bungubung is Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of
DENIED. The Order dated 11 January 2005 finding him liable Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the Ombudsman and
for Grave Misconduct thereby ordering him dismissed from the PPA General Manager from implementing the Order
the service, together with its accessory penalties, is hereby dated 11 January 2005 which dismissed him from
AFFIRMED.” service.13 The Court of Appeals granted the TRO on 3
June 2005.14
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/36
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552
[The Ombudsman] accepted as credible [Doromal’s] claim 3. The Pajero was acquired by [Bungubung’s] son
that [Bungubung] asked for a late model Pajero in exchange from a certain Teresito Uy as evidenced by a notarized
for the 2001 security service contract. x x x deed of sale;
The following must, however, be considered: 4. It is unfair to assume that [Bungubung’s] son
1. The rule on positive and negative testimonies could not afford the price of a used Pajero. He put up a
do not apply where a person who is in a position to glass and aluminum business after getting married.
know if a fact oc- From the foregoing, [the Ombudsman] should have
dismissed the complaint for lack of substantial evidence to
601
support it.
VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 601 The fallo of the Court of Appeals’ 30 June 2006
Marcelo vs. Bungubung Decision reads:
decision. No novel or new matters were introduced therein. AS CONSEQUENTLY HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT,
The disquisition made by the Supreme Court in Dela Cruz THE FINDINGS OF THE OMBUDSMAN DESERVE
vs. Department of Education, Culture and Sports-Cordillera GREAT WEIGHT, AND MUST BE ACCORDED FULL
Administrative Region is most helpful, “We have long held RESPECT AND CREDIT.
that affidavits are deemed hearsay evidence because the
adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine The Ombudsman prays that this Court render a
the affiants. Hence, affidavits are generally deemed Decision nullifying and setting aside the Decision dated
inadmissible or rejected outright unless the affiants 30 June 2006 and Resolution dated 26 October 2006 of
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89689, and
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant affirming the Ombudsman’s Orders dated 11 January
Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.”19 2005 and 28 April 2005 in OMB-ADM-0-01-0502
which found Bungubung guilty of Grave Misconduct
Consequently, the Ombudsman filed this Petition for and dismissing him from service with all the accessory
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised penalties incident thereto.
Rules of Court based on the following grounds: Bungubung counters that the Court of Appeals
correctly held that there was no substantial evidence to
I. hold him liable for grave misconduct; and that the
THE RELIANCE BY THE OMBUDSMAN ON THE reliance by the Ombudsman on the affidavits of
AFFIDAVITS OF ROBERTO DOROMAL AND HIS Doromal and Cruz in determining his administrative
WITNESS IN DETERMINING [BUNGUBUNG]’S liability, despite the fact that the contents thereof were
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY WAS PROPER. IT DID not personally attested to by the affiants before the
NOT DEPRIVE [BUNGUBUNG] OF DUE PROCESS; Ombudsman, was a clear violation of his right to due
II. process. He also avers that the Court of Appeals was
THE FINDING OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE FOR correct in giving credence to the Ex-Parte
GRAVE MISCONDUCT AGAINST [BUNGUBUNG] IS Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw the Complaint
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; and Affidavit of Desistance, filed by Doromal with the
Ombudsman in August 2005, as proof of Bungubung’s
_______________ lack of culpability.
The present Petition must fail.
18 Rollo, p. 45.
Before proceeding to the merits of the instant
19 Id., at pp. 64-65.
Petition, this Court deems it necessary to first address
603 the allegation of Bungubung that he was denied due
process by the Ombudsman. The fact that no formal
VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 603 hearing took place is not sufficient ground to say that
due process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
settled that in administrative proceedings, including
those before the Ombudsman, cases may be submitted
III.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/36
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552
for resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. positions papers or other pleadings can establish just as
The standard of due process that must be met in clearly and concisely aggrieved parties’ predicament or
administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of defense. What is essential is ample opportunity to be heard,
latitude as long as fair- meaning, every kind of assistance that manage-
604
_______________
on the basis of the affidavits on record. These facts when the query necessarily solicits calibration of the
establish that Bungubung was not deprived of his right whole evidence considering mostly the credibility of
to due process, having ample opportunity to present his witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific
side before the Ombudsman. In fact, it was only later on surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another
in a Manifestation filed on 25 February 2002 that and to the whole and probabilities of the situation.26 We
Doromal changed his mind and informed the have consistently held that in a petition for review on
Ombudsman that he was opting instead for the conduct certiorari, this Court does not sit as an arbiter of facts
of a formal investigation. for it is not the function of the Supreme Court to
That point having been settled, this Court moves on analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already
to determine the merits of the Petition at bar. considered in the proceedings below.27 Such factual
The Petition primarily involves questions of fact, findings can be questioned only if, among other
pitting against each other the findings of fact of the exceptions,28 the findings of fact are conflicting and the
Court of Appeals and those of the Ombudsman, both of findings of the Court of Appeals
which depended on the probative weight to be given to
the affidavits of Doromal, Cruz, and the alleged CSEPA _______________
blue book.
We stress the procedural tenet that a petition for 26 Secretary of Education v. Heirs of Rufino Dulay, Sr., G.R. No.
review on certiorari filed with this Court under Rule 45 164748, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 452, 460, citing Philippine
of the Revised Rules of Court shall raise only questions National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 156, 171; 337 SCRA
of law.24 A question of law has been defined as one that 381, 394-395 (2000); Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
does not call for any examination of the probative value 101680, 7 December 1992, 216 SCRA 224, 332.
of the evidence presented by the parties;25 a question of 27 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 157028,
fact arises when the doubt or difference pertains to the 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 311, 320-321; German Machineries
truth or falsehood of alleged facts or Corporation v. Endaya, G.R. No. 156810, 25 November 2004, 444
SCRA 329, 340; Fortuna v. People, 401 Phil. 545, 550; 348 SCRA
360, 364 (2000).
_______________
28 The exceptions to this rule include the following instances: (1)
24 Section 1, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court. when the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
25 Philippine National Bank v. Pike, G.R. No. 157845, 20 conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
September 2005, 470 SCRA 328, 339-340. absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
606 when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
to those of the trial courts; (8) when the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; (9) when the Court of Appeals overlooked certain relevant administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of
facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would evidence. Third, administrative decisions in matters within the
justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of gross
the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law. These principles
contradicted by the evidence on record. (Sering v. Court of Appeals, negate the power of the reviewing court to re-examine the
422 Phil 467, 471-472; 371 SCRA 151, 155-156 (2001); Fuentes v. sufficiency of the evidence in an administrative case as if
Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1163, 1168-1169; 268 SCRA 703, 709 originally instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to
(1997). receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the
administrative agency concerned.”
607
As stated above, the fundamental rule in
VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 607
administrative proceedings is that the complainant has
the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the
Marcelo vs. Bungubung allegations in his complaint. Section 27 of the
Ombudsman Act is unequivocal: Findings of fact by the
are contrary to those of the lower court and/or Office of the Ombudsman when supported by
administrative agency, which exceptional circumstances substantial evidence are conclusive. Conversely,
are present herein, thus, justifying the review by this therefore, when the findings of fact by the Ombudsman
Court of the factual findings of the Ombudsman and the are not adequately supported by substantial evidence,
Court of Appeals. they shall
In Montemayor v. Bundalian,29 this Court laid down
the following guidelines for the judicial review of _______________
decisions rendered by administrative agencies in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial power: 29 453 Phil. 158, 167; 405 SCRA 264, 271 (2003).
is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 609
responsible for the misconduct complained of,31 even if Marcelo vs. Bungubung
such evidence might not be overwhelming or even
preponderant.32 While substantial evidence does not
“Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal
necessarily import preponderance of evidence as is
meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such
required in an ordinary civil case,33 or evidence beyond
as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not
reasonable doubt as is required in criminal cases,34 it
such only as affects his character as a private individual. In
should be enough for a reasonable mind to support a
such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to
conclusion. There is none here.
separate the character of the man from the character of the
Bungubung is being charged with the administrative
officer x x x. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or
offense of Grave Misconduct, which has been
malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer,
authoritatively defined in Amosco v. Judge Magro35 as:
must have direct relation to and be connected with the perfor-
mance of official duties amounting either to
_______________ maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to
30 Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, 429 Phil. 47, 54; 379 discharge the duties of the office. x x x.”
SCRA 322, 329 (2002); Audion Electric Co., Inc. v. National Labor
In In re: Impeachment of Horilleno,36 this Court
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 106648, 17 June 1999, 308 SCRA
authoritatively defined serious misconduct—
340, 351; Association of Independent Unions in the Phils. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 120505, 25 March 1999, 305 “[S]ufficient cause” must exist in the judgment of the
SCRA 219, 231; Gonzales v. National Labor Relations Commission, Supreme Court involving “serious misconduct.” The adjective
G.R. No. 125735, 26 August 1999, 313 SCRA 169, 174. is “serious”; that is, important, weighty, momentous, and not
31 Consolidated Food Corporation v. National Labor Relations trifling. The noun is “misconduct”; that is, a transgression of
Commission, G.R. No. 118647, 23 September 1999, 315 SCRA 129, some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
141. unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.
32 Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor x x x.”
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78787, 18 December 1989, 180
SCRA 195, 200-201. Being guided accordingly by the aforementioned
33 Buduhan v. Pakurao, G.R. No. 168237, 22 February 2006, 283 evidentiary rules and jurisprudence, this Court finds that
SCRA 116, 122. the evidence on record in the present case does not
34 People v. Caiñgat, 426 Phil. 782, 792; 376 SCRA 387, 396 constitute substantial evidence of Bungubung’s
(2002). administrative culpability for grave misconduct.
35 165 Phil. 110, 112; 73 SCRA 107, 108-109 (1976); Manuel v. Within the field of administrative law, while strict
Judge Calimag, Jr., 367 Phil. 162, 166; 307 SCRA 657, 661-662 rules of evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial
(1999). proceedings, nevertheless, in adducing evidence
constitutive of substantial evidence, the basic rule that
609 mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded.37
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/36
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552
_______________ Inc., the winning bidder, who denied giving any money or a
Pajero to Bungubung;
36 43 Phil. 212, 214 (1922).
(b) Affidavit of a certain Rufino Valenzuela, who denied
37 Narazo v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No.
giving instructions for Doromal to go to Bungubung’s office;
80157, 6 February 1990, 181 SCRA 874, 877; Government Service
(c) A copy of the petition in Civil Case No. 01-100678,
Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 511, 529; 296 SCRA
entitled “Roberto C. Doromal, etc. v. Philippine Ports
514, 531 (1998).
Authority, et al.,” questioning the legality of the case filed by
610
Doromal against Bungubung before the RTC to show that
Doromal never mentioned therein that Bungubung requested
for a Pajero from him;
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED (d) A copy of the Deed of Sale of the Pajero executed by
Marcelo vs. Bungubung Teresito Uy in favor of Norman Vincent Bungubung, as proof
that the said vehicle was bought and is now owned by
Bungubung’s son;
In his Affidavit-Complaint, Doromal accused
(e) A copy of the “Traffic Incident Report” of the Central
Bungubung of soliciting and receiving P100,000.00
Police Traffic Enforcement Office to evidence the fabricated
from him and a Mitsubishi Pajero van from another
“hit and run” charge made by an employee of CSEPA against
bidder in exchange for the award of the security
the Pajero owned by Bungubung’s son; and
services contract of the PPA. Doromal also accused
Bungubung and other PPA employees of demanding 611
and receiving balato in consideration of the award of
the PPA Security Service Contract.
VOL. 552, APRIL 23, 2008 611
In addition to his Complaint-Affidavit, Doromal
submitted a Reply-Affidavit, as well as the following Marcelo vs. Bungubung
supporting documents:
(f) PSBAC Resolutions establishing that the award of the
(a) Affidavit of Evalyn Cruz, his secretary; PPA Security Contracts was made by public bidding.”
(b) CSEPA blue book detailing the monthly “balato” or
“payola” paid to PPA officials and employees, referred to The Ombudsman chose to give more credence to
therein as representation expenses. Doromal’s allegations and evidence when it found that
Bungubung took advantage of his position as Chairman
On the other hand, Bungubung filed his Counter- of the PSBAC and used it as leverage in soliciting cash
Affidavit and Rejoinder-Affidavit. In his defense, and a Mitsubishi Pajero van from the bidders as a
Bungubung further submitted the following evidence: consideration for the award of the PPA security service
contract. However, Doromal’s evidence is hardly
(a) Affidavit of Celso A. Fernandez, President and substantive.
Chairman of Star Special Watchman and Detective Agency, First, Doromal’s allegation that Bungubung
acquired the Mitsubishi Pajero van from another bidder
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b42cf8c8845e2a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/36
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552
after failing to successfully solicit the same from him is Alex July 2000- P144,000.00
highly suspect, since Doromal only narrated the alleged Cruz Feb 2001
solicitation in his Affidavit-Complaint against
The CSEPA blue book, however, is evidently self-
Bungubung filed with the Ombudsman on 7 September
serving. The entries therein were purportedly made by a
2001. He failed to mention such a significant
certain Ebora, who was never presented to personally
circumstance in Civil Case No. 01100678, Roberto C.
identify the entries she made or confirm the same. The
Doromal v. Philippine Ports Authority, before the RTC
only other person involved in the preparation of the
or in his petition for TRO in the same case, both of
blue book was Doromal who supposedly approved the
which were filed ahead of his Affidavit-Complaint
entries therein. The blue book is not audited, nor is it
before the Ombudsman.
subject to review by an independent party. The blue
Second, little weight should be given to the CSEPA
book then can easily be manufactured. Considering the
blue book allegedly detailing the monthly payola or
seriousness of the charges which may arise against the
balato paid to PPA officials and employees from July
public officers named therein, the entries in the blue
2000 to February 2001, recorded therein as
book must not be accepted at face value when the
representation expenses. According to the CSEPA blue
entries therein are uncorroborated by any other
book, the following PPA key officials received monthly
evidence.
representation allowances:
Third, while the Ombudsman gave much weight and
NAME POSITION PERIOD TOTAL credit to Doromal’s evidence, it lightly brushed aside
AMOUNT that submitted by Bungubung. Among Bungubung’s
Mr. Cecilio AGM July 2000- P200,000.00 evidence which the Ombudsman failed to consider was
Operations Feb 2001 a copy of the “Traffic Accident Incident Report”
Leopoldo Port District July 2000- P300,000.00
Bungubung Manager Feb 2001
prepared by the Central Police Traffic Enforcement
Ted Alcalde District July 2000- P144,000.00 Office, stating that on 4 May 2001, Doromal filed a
Manager Feb 2001 false report of a “hit-and-run” incident which
Capt. Gamis Chief of Port July 2000- P144,000.00 supposedly occurred on 1 May 2001 involving the
Police– Feb 2001 Mitsubishi Pajero van of Bungubung’s son. The report
was made by the police investigator in his official
612
capacity; thus, it enjoys the presumption of regularity
and is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The filing of the false report establishes ill motive on
Marcelo vs. Bungubung
the part of Doromal specifically directed against
Bungubung.
Fourth, the main defense put up by Bungubung is
North Harbor
complete denial, a defense which is said to be the
Felix Chief of Port July 2000- P35,000.00
Barcala Police –South Feb 2001 weakest, seldom believed or given weight, as it is easy
Harbor to fabricate. Nonethe-
Desistance by the complainant for lack of interest does dated 30 June 2006 and Order dated 26 October 2006 of
not ipso facto result in the termination of the the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89689 are
administrative case, it was constrained to dismiss the AFFIRMED.
charges since such charges cannot be proven without No Costs.
the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses. SO ORDERED.
Such is the case at bar. Essentially, the administrative
case against Bungubung was based on the allegations Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,
made by Doromal in his Affidavit-Complaint, without Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
which, the case against Bungubung collapses.
Petition denied, judgment and order affirmed.
The Court of Appeals therefore took proper notice
of Doromal’s Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the Notes.—Substantial evidence, which is the quantum
Affidavit-Complaint and Affidavit of Desistance since of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before
they cast a different light on the evidence previously administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, is that level of
considered by the Ombudsman. relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
After evaluating the totality of evidence on record, accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Philemploy
this Court reaches the inescapable conclusion that Services and Resources, Inc. vs. Rodriguez, 486 SCRA
complainant Doromal failed to present substantial 302 [2006])
evidence that Bungubung is administratively liable for The withdrawal or desistance of a complaint from
grave misconduct. pursuing an administrative complaint does not divest
the Court of its disciplinary authority over court
_______________ personnel. (Bajar vs. Baterisna, 499 SCRA 629 [2006])
——o0o——
39 A.C. No. 3037, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 563, 565-566.
615 _______________