31\cpubfit of tbc llbihppincs

$,Upreme Qtourt
fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

HUMPHREY T. MONTEROSO, G.R. Nos. 235274-75, _

Petitioner,

- versus-

SPECIAL PANEL NO. 13-01- Members:

IAB, represented by DONABEL
ATIENZA, GESMUNDO, CJ Chairperson,
Respondent. CAGUIOA,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
M. LOPEZ,* and
J. LOPEZ, JJ.

Promulgated:

x----------------------------------------~-~~-1-3-20_2_1- - - ' ~
DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

The Cases

Separate complaints were filed by Spouses Jesus and Meljurena Osabel

(Spouses Osabel), Emmanuel Arque!lano (Arquello), and Amelia 0. Peligro
(Peligro), respectively, against petitioner Humphrey T. Monteroso, former
Deputy Ombudsman of the Office of the Ombudsman for !V[indanao (OMB-
MIN), with salary grade 30,l viz.: (a) OMB-C-A-13-0374 for Gross Neglect
of Duty, Gross Insubordination, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest

* On official leave-.
1
Rollo, p. 258.
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

of the Service;2 and (b) OMB-C-A-13-0375 for Grave Misconduct and Grave
Abuse of Authority. 3

OMB-C-A-13-0374
Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross
Insubordination, and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service

On June 1, 2009, Spouses Osabel filed before the OMB-MIN a criminal

complaint under OMB-M-C-09-0262-F against then General Santos Mayor
Pedro Acharon, Jr. and other city officials for alleged tampering of land titles
in General Santos City. 4 The case got assigned to the office of petitioner
Humprey Monteroso, then Deputy Ombudsman of OMB-MIN. Despite
several motions for early resolution and follow ups, 5 however, the complaint
did not move as it remained at the preliminary investigation level for two (2)
years.

Consequently, on December 2, 2011, Assistant Ombudsman

Asryman T. Rafanan (AO Rafanan) indorsed Spouses Osabel's complaint to
petitioner for appropriate action, with a request that AO Rafanan and Spouses
Osabel be informed of the action taken on the matter within seven (7) days
from notice. But petitioner failed to respond. 6

A month later or on January 3, 2012, Spouses Osabel informed then

President Benigno Aquino of the status of their complaint before OMB-MIN.
The Office of the President (OP) referred the letter to the OMB's Public
Assistance Bureau (PAB). By Memorandum dated February 20, 2012, the
P AB reiterated the directive for petitioner to act on the complaint with
dispatch. 7

Again, petitioner did not respond. Four (4) years after the case got filed
though, the OMB-MIN eventually dismissed the complaint for lack of
probable cause. 8

2 Id. at 140.
3
Id. at 862.
4
Id. at 74.
5 December 28, 2009 - Spouses Osabel filed their first Motion for Early Resolution.

April 18, 20 l l - Spouses Osabe I were informed by L'ien Records Head Teofila Q. Maeatiog, Jr. that their
complaint remained pending at the preliminary investigation stage.

On May 6, 2011 - Spouses Osabel filed a supplemental complaint which, among _other things, prayed for the
immediate resolution ofthelf complaint.

August 31, 2011 - they were again advised that their complaint was still undergoing preliminary
investigation.

September 12, 20 t I - Spouses Osabei requested from the Ombudsman an early resolution of their complaint.
' Rollo, p. 86 J.
7 Id.
8 Id.
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

On the basis of petitioner's prior inaction on Spouses Osabel's letters

and directives of the 0MB, the Internal Affairs Board (IAB), initiated an
investigation headed by IAB Investigating Staff Atty. Reyvic Iringan who
later on recommended an administrative adjudication on petitioner's
culpability. IAB Administrative Officer Atty. Leilani Cabras approved the
recommendation and ordered the creation of a special panel of investigators
comprised by respondents Donabel D. Atienza, Ryan P. Medrano, and Maria
Melinda Mananghaya-Henson, as members. In its subsequent Fact-Finding
Report captioned as "complaint-affidavit," the special panel recommended
that petitioner be held liable for Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross
Insubordination, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.9
The Report was forwarded to the IAB for action. 10

Through his Counter-Affidavit dated December 4, 2013, 11 petitioner

denied the accusations against him. He averred that he did not intentionally
refuse to act on Spouses Osabel's complaint, let alone defy the OMB's
directives. All communications regarding the complaint were referred to the
assigned handling lawyer Atty. Noel Gelito (Atty. Gelito ). He himself,
nonetheless, failed to respond to the communications sent by Spouses Osabel
because he was understaffed. At any rate, his office eventually dismissed the
complaint for lack of probable cause.

The IAB's Report and Recommendation in OMB-C-A-13-0374

By Decision 12 dated March 5, 2015, the IAB found petitioner liable for
Simple Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service but exonerated him of gross insubordination. 13

On petitioner's liability for simple neglect of duty, the IAB held that
it was petitioner's duty, as overall head ofOMB-MIN to ensure that all cases
filed and pending with his office were timely resolved. Otherwise, OMB-
MIN's inexplicable failure to resolve cases within a reasonable period may be
considered an infringement of the litigant's right to speedy trial. Any formal
chmge resulting from an unduly protracted preliminary investigation may be
dismissed outright by the trial court. His supposed heavy workload was not
an excuse. 14

The IAB noted that despite the repeated follow ups and motions for
immediate resolution coming from Spouses Osabel, petitioner took no action,
until four (4) years later. 15

9
Id. at 861-862.
10 Id at 256-265.
11 Id. at 140.
12 Id. al 137-151.
13
Id. at 20.
14 Id. at 145.
15
Id. at 144.
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

He was also duty-bound to respond to letters and requests addressed to

hiP1 within fifteen (15) days from notice. 16 He neither formally replied to
Spouses Osabel's letters and the PAB Memorandum nor informed AO
Rafanan and Spouses Osabel of the action taken on the complaint despite
direct order. 17

With respect to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the

Service, the IAB held that the lengthy delay in the resolution of Spouses
Osabel's complaint, along with the inexplicable refusal to acknowledge the
litigants' written requests, AO Rafanan's indorsement, and the P AB
memorandum spoke volumes of petitioner's lack of concern for OMB-MIN' s
role in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. This eroded the
people's faith in his office and tarnished the integrity of his office. 18

The IAB, however, found petitioner not liable for gross

insubordination. Petitioner's non-compliance with AO Rafanan's
Indorsement sprang from his lackadaisical attitude toward the case and not
from an intentional defiance from the orders of his superiors. 19

The IAB held that for simple neglect of duty, the 2011 Revised Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), provides for the
penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for
the first offense. 20 On the other hand, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service is punishable with suspension for a period of six (6)
months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from
the service for the second offense.

Petitioner having been found guilty of these two infractions, the penalty
should be that corresponding to the more serious charge which is Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Simple neglect of duty, on the
other hand shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 21 The IAB,
nonetheless considered petitioner's length of government service as a
mitigating circumstance. Hence, following Section 49 22 of the RRACCS, the

16
Id. at 143.
17 Id at 144.
18 Id at 148.
1, Id.
20 Id. at 149.
z1Id.
22 Section 49. Manner of Imposition. - When applicable. the imposition of the penalty may be made in
accordance with the manner provided herein below:

a. Toe minimum of the penalt'j shall be imposed where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances
are present.
b. The medium of the penalty shall be imposed where no mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
present
c. The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed vvhere only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances
are present. d. "Where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, paragraph [a] shall be applied
where there are more mitigating circumstances present; paragraph [b] shall be applied when the
circumstances equally offset each other: and paragraph [cJ shall be applied when there are more aggravating
circumstances.
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

IAB imposed on petitioner the medium period of the prescribed penalty which
is nine (9) months suspension. 23

But since petitioner's term as Deputy Ombudsman had.already expired

during the pendency of the administrative cases, instead of suspension, the
0MB imposed a single penalty of fine in the amount equivalent to
respondent's salary for six (6) months deductible from his retirement benefits,
accrued leave credits and any other receivables due him. 24

On April 30, 2015, then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales

approved the IAB's decision. 25

Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied under Order

dated October 29, 2015. 26

OMB-C-A-13-0375
Grave Misconduct and Grave
Abuse of Authority

Grave Misconduct

Per Sinumpaang Salaysay dated November 13, 2012, 27 Arquellano

narrated that sometime in July 2011, petitioner's brother-in-law Christopher
Lindo recruited him to work as petitioner's personal aide. His duties included
assisting petitioner in his work at the OMB-MIN and performing household
chores for petitioner's family specifically looking after petitioner's various
pets, cleaning petitioner's cars, and accompanying petitioner to the market.
Everyday, he woke up at 3 o'clock in the morning to perform his chores after
which he went directly to the OMB-MIN to render administrative tasks. The
agreement was that petitioner's salary will be sourced from petitioner's office
at OMB-MIN as his name will be entered in petitioner's plantilla as
Administrative Aide II (Salary Grade 2). 28

One day, petitioner gave him Pl0,000.00 and ordered him to open a
bank account under his (Arquellano's) name with Metrobank, Sta. Ana,
Davao Branch. He did, as instructed. Sometime later, the bank informed him
of a P300,000.00 deposit made in the account, the source of which he failed
to substantially explain upon the bank's inquiry. Thus, the bank closed the
account. Petitioner, however, ordered him to open a new account, this time
with Banco de Oro (BDO). The initial deposit of P200,000.00 was taken from
the P300,000.00 drawn from the closed Metrobank account. The remaining
Pl00,000.00 was remitted to petitioner. From time to time, he withdrew

23 Id.
24
ld at i49-150.
25
Id. at 150.
26
ld at 164-174.
27 Id. at 552-556.
28 Id at 862.
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

significant amounts of money from the BDO account which he handed over
to ?etitioner. 29

He became increasingly bothered by this kind of arrangement so he

decided to leave petitioner's employ on March 6, 2012. Before he resigned,
he withdrew the remaining funds from the BDO account and turned them over
to petitioner. He never saw petitioner again. While he had properly disclosed
the BDO funds in his exit Statement of Assets Liability and Networth
(SALN), petitioner was the actual and beneficial owner of these funds. He
subsequently reported the matter to the IAB. 30

To aid respondent in its inquiry, Arquellano submitted the following

documents: (a) BDO Statement of Account dated March 6, 2012; (b)
Certifications dated December 7, 2012 issued by BDO; (c) his SALN dated
March 6, 2012; and (d) Consent to Examine Bank Account with Waiver dated
November 14, 2012. 31

Petitioner, in his Counter-Affidavit32 admitted hiring Arquellano as a

house help. He allowed Arquellano to simultaneously work as his house help
and as an employee of OMB-MIN to accommodate Arquellano's desire for
additional income. He did not discuss financial matters with Arquellano, let
alone instruct him to open bank accounts for his benefit. No one of sound
mind would entrust to a construction worker (Arquellano) significant amounts
of money, as what Arquellano claims he did when he made Arquellano open
bank accounts for him. It is of public knowledge that many construction
workers are drug addicts, smokers, and gamblers and oftentimes, they are
primary suspects of theft, robbery, and other criminalities. 33 The funds in the
questioned bank accounts belonged to Arquellano who only invented this
story against him to cover up his (Arquellano) involvement in the
embezzlement incident involving the business of his brother-in-law. 34

Grave Abuse of Authority or Oppression

During a fact-finding inquiry relative to other IAB administrative cases

against petitioner,35 the IAB issued a subpoena duces tecum dated December
3, 2012 to Amelia 0. Peligro (Peligro ), Chief Administrative Officer of OMB-
MIN, directing her to submit the Human Resource files (HR files) from the
OMB-MIN's Human Resource Management Office (HRMO) specifically
Personal Data Sheet, Position Description Form, updated service record,
appointment/designation papers, SALNs and Performance Appraisal Reports
of petitioner, one John Philip Jay P. Garte, and one Concepcion Ba..rtolata. 36

29 Id. at 862-863.
30
1d. at 863.
31
Id. at 404.
32
Id. at 586-596.
33 ld. at 589.
34
Id. at 591.
35
lAB-10-0024, !AB-11-0004 and JAB-12-0046.
36
Rollo, pp. 77-78.

I
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

By letter-reply dated December 26, 2012, Peligro informed the IAB that
she cannot submit the required docm11ents because she was refused access to
all HR files which were already in the custody of Mary Sol Ariarte (Ariarte),
whom petitioner assigned "to handle HR matters in the meantime that the
HRMO III position is still vacant." Petitioner warned her not to get records
without first asking permission, even ifit pertained to an IAB case. Petitioner
further berated her saying she had no authority over the files because she was
a mere chief administrative officer ( "admin chief ka fang dito! "). She felt
humiliated because she had been scolded by petitioner in front of a colleague,
Executive Assistant Raymundo Go. 37

Petitioner denied suppressing the documentary evidence requested by

the IAB and berating Peligro for processing the IAB's request for HR files.
The truth is, he immediately submitted all the documents to the IAB because
he "is not hiding anything." 38

Finding basis to proceed with the administrative adjudication, the IAB

ordered the special panel to investigate and submit its report and
recommendation. In its subsequent Fact-Finding Report captioned as
"complaint," the special panel recommended that petitioner be held liable for
grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority or oppression. 39 IAB
Chairperson Gerard Mosquera approved the Report and Recommendation and
forwarded the same to the IAB for appropriate action. 40

The IAB's Report and Recommendation OMB-C-A-13-0375

By Decision41 dated March 5, 2015, the IAB found petitioner guilty of

Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority or Oppression.

For grave misconduct, the IAB held that petitioner unfairly took
advantage of Arquellano when he made him perform household chores for
him and his family without any compensation. His sala,7 as such was drawn
from the OMB-MIN which employed him as Administrative Aide II. 42

As Administrative Aide II, Arquellano should have only performed the

official functions attached to his position, not inside petitioner's home. As it
was, petitioner and his family solely benefitted from the domestic chores
performed by a government employee. 43

Petitioner's bare denial that he used Arquellano as a dummy in his

monetary transactions cannot prevail over Arquellano's sworn statement
supplied by numerous financial records, including bank statements and

37
Id. at 78.
38
Id. at 406.
39
Id. at 518-534.
40 Id. at 256-265.
41 Id. at 398-417.
42 Id. at 408-409.
43 Id. at 409.
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

certifications. Notably, Arquellano had no qualms at all in allowing the special

panel to look into and examine the bank accounts in question. 44 The salaries
and emoluments he received from OMB-MIN supported Arquellano's claim
that he had no means or capacity to deposit the huge amount of funds
contained in the bank accounts. 45

As for grave abuse of authority, the IAB found that it was oppressive
for petitioner to have Arquellano perform domestic chores early in the
morning aside from his duties as an administrative aide at the OMB-MIN,
without paying him a separate compensation for these domestic chores. 46

Petitioner's statement that since Arquellano was a mere construction

worker, his version of events was nothing more than a figment of his
imagination, bore his utter lack of respect for Arquellano. 47

Petitioner, too gravely abused his authority when he required Peligro,

the Chief Achninistrative Officer ofOMB-MIN to first obtain clearance from
him before she could access the files pertaining to administrative matters in
their office. He even berated her for her supposed "low position" and for
previously assisting the JAB in obtaining copies of HR files without his
permission. 48

Petitioner did not deny having assigned Ariarte, a contractual

employee, to act as custodian of the HR files; nor refute Peligro's allegation
that he issued an instruction that all requests for copies of HR files should first
be cleared by him prior to release. 49

As for the penalty, the IAB noted that under the RRACCS, grave
misconduct is a serious achninistrative offense and is punishable by dismissal
from service, even on the first offense. Grave Abuse of Authority or
Oppression, on the other hand is punishable by suspension for a period of six
(6) months and one (1) day to one (l) year for the first offense and dismissal
from service for the second offense. so

Grave misconduct being the more serious offense, grave abuse of

authority becomes an aggravating circumstance. Verily, petitioner should be
dismissed from service with accessory penalties of cancellation of civil
service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual
disqualification from holding public office. Considering, however, that
petitioner's tenn of office as Deputy Ombudsman expired during the
pendency of the case, his dismissal from the service is no longer feasible,

44
Id. at 409.
45
Id. at 413.
46 Id. at 410.
47
Jdat41L
48
Id at 87.
9
' Jdat41L
50 Id. at.414.
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

hence, the IAB recommended that he instead be fined in an amount equivalent

to his salary for six (6) months. 51

On April 30, 2015, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved the

IAB's recommendation. 52

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied under Order dated

October 29, 2015.

Petitioner consequently went to the Court of Appeals via CA-G.R. SP

No.143404 (simple neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service) which was subsequently consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No.
143405 pertaining to petitioner's alleged liability for grave misconduct and
grave abuse of authority. 53

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

Petitioner reiterated his arguments before the O:MB. He further argued

that following Section III (N) of Administrative Order No. 16-2003 (AO 16-
2003), the IAB members should have been automatically disqualified from
participating in the cases because they were the ones who initiated the filing
of the complaints.54

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

CA-G.R. SP No. 143404

Simple neglect of duty and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service

By Decision55 dated July 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The appellate court found petitioner guilty of simple neglect of duty

for his delayed resolution of O:MB-M-C-09-0262-F. Petitioner may not pass

51 Id at 21.
52 Id at 150.
53 Id at 79.
54 Ill. PROCEDURES IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS

XXX XXX XXX

N. Disqualifications

The Chainnan, Vice Chainnan or any member of the !AB, as well as any member of the !AB Investigating
Staff, shall be automatically disqualified from acting on a complaint or participating in a proceeding under
the following circumstances:
1. He is a party to the corn plaint, either as a respondent or complainant;
XXX XXX XXX

55 Penned by Now Supreme Court Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin
D. Sorongon and Maria Elisa Sempio-Diy; Rollo, pp. 73-91.
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

the blame on the assigned handling lawyer because pursuant to Section 13 of

Republic Act No. 6770 (RA 6770), as then Deputy Ombudsman, petitioner
had the primary duty to make sure all complaints are acted upon promptly.
Unlike pleadings and · communications on pending cases which are
automatically referred to the assigned lawyers, the Indorsement of AO
Rafanan and the Memorandum of the Director of the PAB were both
addressed to petitioner himself These are internal office memoranda which
petitioner had the duty to read and acknowledge firsthand. 56

Petitioner was also found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best

Interest of the Service. As then Deputy Ombudsman, petitioner was duty-
bound to comply with laws and rules on speedy disposition of cases pending
before the 0MB as well as immediate action on written communications
addressed to him. As it was, however, petitioner violated the very laws and
rules he swore to uphold when he delayed the disposition of a case and failed
to acknowledge the official communications addressed to him. His actions
tarnished the image of his office and for which he should be held
accountable. 57

The Court of Appeals affirmed the OMB's ruling that in view of the
expiration of petitioner's term as Deputy Ombudsman, in lieu of suspension,
he should be fined in the amount equivalent to petitioner's salary for six (6)
months deductible from his retirement benefits, accrued leave credits, and any
other receivables due him. 58

CA-G.R. SP No.143405
Grave Misconduct and Grave
Abuse of Authority or
Oppression

The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's guilt for grave misconduct.

He took advantage ofOMB-MIN by facilitating Arquellano's appointment as
an Administrative Aide II despite the latter actually working as his house boy.
He: failed to show proof that he paid a separate compensation for the
housework done for him and his family. 59 He also instructed Arquellano to
open bank accounts for his questionable transactions. 60

Petitioner, as well, is guilty of grave abuse of authority when he

required Peiigro to obtain clearance from him prior to accessing the records
of employees involved in the IAB's investigation. 61 There was no reason for
him to deny Peligro access to the HR files. Peligro had the duty to comply
with the subpoena - her failure to do so will subject her to administrative

56
Id. at 85.
57
Id. at 86.
58
Id. at 149-150.
59
Id at 88.
60 Id at 87.
,1 Id
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

disciplinary action. This duty ~a.'illot he made subject to the whims of a higher
officer, in this case, petitionei. 62

The Court of Appeals further affirmed the OMB's ruling that in view
of the expiration of petitioner's tenn as Deputy Ombudsman, his dismissal
from service is no longer feasible, hence, in lieu thereof, he should be fined in
the amount equivalent to petitioner's salai-y for six (6) months with accessory
penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits,
perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil
service examinations. 63

Lastly, the Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's claim that the special
panel should have inhibited in the cases below in view of its participation
therein as a party. Too, the Court of Appeals clarified that the special panel is
not covered by Section III (N) of AO 16-2003 because it is merely a nominal
party in the subject cases being t.he one which investigated the cases, and
based on the results of the investigation, recommended that petitioner be made
liable for the infractions charged. Its members had no personal interest in the
complaints against petitioner.64

Under Resolution65 dated October 23, 2017, petitioner's motion for

reconsideration was denied.

The Present Petitions

Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court via G.R. Nos.
235274 and 235275.

62
Rollo, p. 89.
63
Id. at 149-150.
" Ill. PROCEDURES IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS
H. Action on the Intelligence or Fact-Finding Investigation Report

I. Where the Intelligence or Fact-Finding Report recommends the conduct of a preliminary

investigation and/or administrative adjudication against an official or employee of the Office
of the Ombudsman, the Chairman shall approve the same and direct the investigator or panel
of JAB-IS investigators to prepare the necessary complaint. The case shall immediately be
docketed and assigned by raffle, with the assistance of the !AB Administrative Officer, to
another IAB investigator or panel, or to the IAB, either in division or en bar1c, when proper.
2" In case the IAB Chalnnan disagrees with the recommendation to conduct preliminary
investigation and/or administrative adjudication~ the decision of the Board Chairman shall
prevail. The report shall be apµroved by the following:
a. The IAB Chalnna11 1 where the respondent or the highest ra.Tlking respondent occupies
a position belonging to the first level in the career service, or who is in the non-career
service with Salary Grade 13 and below;
b. The JAB en bane, where the respondent or the highest ranking respondent occupies a
position belonging tv the second level of the career servic~ with Salary Grade not
higher than 24. or who is in the nun-career service \Vith Salary Grade 14 to 24;
c. The Ombuds~an, upon :-ecommendation of the IAB, where the respondent or the
highest rankilig respondent occupies a position with Salary Grade 25 or above.
3. The preventive suspension orde;, when proper~ shall be approved in accordance witl1 the
immediately prectding section.
4. Where the intelligence or fact-fir.ding report recommends any action other than the conduct of
preliminary investigation and/or administrative ad_iudicatjon, the approval required in part
(IV)(H)(2) above should likewise be obtained.
65 Rollo, p. 94.
Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

G.R. No. 235274

Simple Neglect of Duty

Petitioner argues that he is similarly situated with Former Deputy

Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III in Gonzales III v. Office of the President,66
hence, the manner by which his case should be resolved must be similar to
how the Gonzales case was resolved by the Court. He asserts that he and
Gonzales had the same duties and functions, volume of work, and degree of
pressure brought about by their respective positions. 67

Conduct Prejudicial to the

Best Interest of the Service

Petitioner posits that he did not commit inordinate delay in the

resolution of the complaint of Spouses Osabel since there was no specific
period of delay alleged by respondent except for the general period counted
from the filing up to the approval of the resolution by the Ombudsman. 68

Delay in the resolution of the complaint of Spouses Osabel is

punishable under Section 23 of RA 6770 and not under the RRACCS. He only
ought to pay a fine not exceeding PS,000.00. 69

G.R. No. 235275

Grave Misconduct

He claims to have hired Arquel!ano in July 2011 as a house boy, with a

monthly salary of P2,000 including free food and lodging. But to have
additional income to tide his family over, he allowed him to apply as an
administrative aide in his office at the OMB-MIN sometime in September
2011. 70

Arquellano's testimony is riddled with inconsistencies. He claims that

he declared in his exit SALN the amount of Pl5,000.00 as his money in the
bank. Upon verification, however, said BDO account only had loose change
left at the time he left OMB-MIN. The Pl5,000.00 Arquellano claims to have
in his account is another figment of his imagination. 71 Arquellano never said
petitioner gave him a share, commission, or reward for keeping the Metrobank
and BDO accounts. This is contrary to human experience.72

66 725 Phil. 380,411 (2014).

67
Roi/o, p. 38.
"Id.
69
Id. at 59.
70
Id. at 42.
71
Id. at 53.
n ld
Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

Grave Abuse of Authority

There was no evidence or at least affidavit from other people who were
allegedly present when he supposedly berated Peligro for her "low position"
and her effort in assisting the IAB get HR files. The truth is, Peligro merely
wrote a letter addressed to the IAB justifying her inaction. 73

The amount of fine imposed on him equivalent to six (6) month salary
in lieu of dismissal as well as forfeiture of retirement benefits are too grave a
penalty and is an overkill on the part of the Ombudsman. 74

Lastly, petitioner reiterates that the special panel members should have
inhibited themselves from participating in the cases against him. 75

Through its Comment76 dated May 18, 2018, the special panel counters
that it is not covered by AO 16-2003 since it is merely a nominal complainant
in the cases against petitioner. Its members had no personal interest in the
complaints they were required to file against him pursuant to Section III (H)
of AO 16.

The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed that petitioner is guilty of

simple neglect of duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service. Citing Section 13 77 of R.A.. 6770, it is the duty of petitioner to act
promptly on complaints filed against government officials and employees. 78

Too, for simple neglect of duty, Gonzales Ill is not on all fours with
the case. In Gonzales Ill, Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales III was not held
administratively liable for gross neglect of duty because there was no evidence
showing inordinate and unjustified delay on his part in resolving the motion
for reconsideration then pending before his office. In stark contrast, petitioner
failed to satisfactorily explain why it took his office almost four (4) years to
resolve Spouses Osabel's complaint. Petitioner also failed to act on the
numerous letters sent by Spouses Osabel and the internal indorsements
forwarded to him for action. 79

Petitioner is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the

service. Under Section 13 80 of RA 6770, it was the duty of petitioner to act
promptly on complaints filed against government officials and employees. His

73 Id at 46.
74
Id. ai 62.
75 Id at 30.
76
Id. at 860-875.
77 Section 13. Mandate. - The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shalI act promptly
on complaints filed in any fonn or m,mner against offir.ers or employees of the Government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and
enforce their administrative, c.ivi1 and criminal liability in every case when! the evidence warrants in order to
promote efficient service by the Government to the peopJc.
78 Rollo, p. 866.
79
ld. at 868.
so Supra, note Tl.

I
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

inaction or omission to perform this duty, nay, his indifference, tarnished the
image of his public office. 81

Respondent also insists that petitioner is liable for grave misconduct

for taking advantage of his position when he (1) facilitated Arquellano's
appointment as Administrative Aide II despite the fact that the latter was
already working as his house help; and (2) instructed Arquellano to open bank
accounts under the latter's name to facilitate petitioner's illegal transactions. 82

Further, petitioner, is guilty of grave abuse of authority for requiring

Peligro to first obtain clearance from him before she may secure copies of the
HR files pertaining to ongoing fact-finding investigations in the OMB-MIN. 83

Issues

1. Should the special panel members (IAB members) be disqualified from

participating in the administrative cases against petitioner?
2. In G.R. No. 235274, is petitioner liable for simple neglect of duty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?
3. In G.R. No. 235275, is petitioner liable for grave misconduct and grave
abuse of authority?

Our Ruling

The petitions are devoid of merit.

The special panel members

(JAB members) are not
disqualified from participating
in the complaints against
petitioner

The first issue: are the special panel members disqualified from
participating in the cases against petitioner?

To begin with, respondent special panel members were investigators,

and not complainants in the context of Section HI (N) of AO 16-2003. Created
by virtue of AO 16-2003,84 the spe.::ial panel was tasked to conduct a fact-

81
Rollo, p. 866.
82
Id. at 867-868.
83 Id. at 867.
84 ll!. PROCEDURES IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS

E. Conduct ofEvaiuation. Upon receipt of the complain!, the investigator shall evaluate the complaint and
submit to the JAB Chairman, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, an evaluation report, which shall
contain, among othe.rs. the following:
XXX XXX XXX
3. The actions recommended to be taken, which may be any ofihe following:
XXX XXX

4
Decision G.R. Nos. 235274-75

finding investigation oftl-1e complaints filed against petitioner and submit its
ree;ommendation whether to pr,)Ceed with the administrative adjudication or
to dismiss the complaints.

Here, the document captioned as "complaint-affidavit" was actually the

Report of the special panel containing its factual findings as well as its
recommendation for administrative adjudication of the complaints against
petitioner. To repeat, it was not a party to the case either as complainant or
respondent. As aptly ruled by ilie
Court of Appeals, it was Spouses Osabel,
Arquellano, and Peligro who were the real complainants against petitioner.

To emphasize, the disqualification under Section III (N) of AO 16-2003

does not refer to the special panel as a body but to an individual member who
is either a complainant or respondent in the case.

G.R. No. 235274

Petitioner is guilty of simple

neglect of duty

Under Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 6713 85 ofuerwise known as

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
every public officer or employee must respond to letters and requests
addressed to him or her wifuin fifteen (15) working days from notice. In the
case of petitioner, he does not deny that he failed to formally reply to the
Indorsement of AO Rafanan, to the letters of Spouses Osabel and to the P AB

b. To conduct a fact-finding investigation or intelligence operations;

XXX XXX XXX

G. Conduct of Fact-Finding Investigation or Intelligence Operation

1. Where the conduct of a fact-finding investigation or intelligence operation is found to be

proper on the basis ofa complaint, or at the instance of the !AB Chairman, !AB en bane or
the Ombudsman, the IAB Chairman, with the assistance of the IAB Administrative Officer,
shall assign the case by raffle to an JAB-IS investigator orto a panel of!AB-1S investigators.

2. The !AB-IS investigator or panel of IAB-IS investigators shall submit an Intelligence or Fact-
Finding Report, together with his/its recommendation, to the JAB Chairman within sixty
(60) days from his/its receipt of the complaint.

H. Action on the Inte!Jigence or Fact-Finding Investigation Report

4. Where the Intelligence or Fact-Finding Report recommends the conduct of a preliminary

investigation and/or administrative adjudication against an official or empioyee of the Office
of the Ombudsman, the Chairman shall approve the same and d.ire{".t the investigator or
panel of JAB-IS (IAB fovestigating Stall) investigators to prepare the necessary
com plaint. xxx (Emphases supplied.)
s5 Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the perfonfrance of their duties, all public officials
and employees are under obligation to:

(a) Act promptly on letter~ and i::equ~sb,. - AH pllbiic offlciah and employees shall, with1n fifteen (15)
working days from receipt thereof, respor~d to letters, teies111..ms Qr other means of communications sent by
the pubiic. The reply must contain the actioH taken on the request.
Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

Memorandum. Neither does he deny that he failed to inform AO Rafanan and

Spouses Osabel of the action so far taken on Spouses Osabel's complaint
under OMB-M-C-09-0262-F despite a directive from AO Rafanan and the
P AB to do so or at least acknowledge his receipt of the directive either by
himself or through the assigned hancUing lawyer Atty. Gelito. 86

In other words, he failed to give proper attention to a task expected of

him, signifying a disregard of his duty resulting from either carelessness or
indifference. 87 This constitutes simple neglect of duty. 88

In Felix v. Vitriolo, 89 respondent Vitriolo, former Executive Director of

the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) was held liable for neglect of
duty when he ignored the letters a former faculty member of the Pamantasan
ng Lungsod ng JVlaynila (PLM) sent him relative to the alleged diploma-mill
operations and other anomalies surrounding the programs offered by PLM, in
violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 6713. He was not only guilty
of simple neglect of duty but gross neglect of duty because even after he
acknowledged Felix's letters three (3) years later and thereafter promised to
investigate the matter, he still failed to update Felix about the results of the
supposed investigation, if indeed one was conducted.

Petitioner's invocation of Gonzales III is misplaced. In the first place,

Gonzales III was not about simple neglect of duty but about gross neglect of
duty which Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales III supposedly committed relative
to his alleged inordinate delay in the resolution of a motion for reconsideration
pending before his office. At any rate, the Court ruled that Deputy
Ombudsman Gonzales III did not commit gross neglect of duty because there
was no showing that he incurred inordinate delay in resolving the motion for
reconsideration. In stark contrast, petitioner here was charged and found liable
for simple neglect of duty because he inexplicably failed to respond to the
communications of his superiors requiring him to inform them of his action
on the case. He did not even acknowledge receipt of these communications.

Petitioner is liable for conduct

prt!}udicial to the best interest
of the service

OMB-M-C-09-0262-F was filed with OMB-J\r1IN on June 1, 2009 and

got dismissed for lack of probable cause almost four ( 4) years later or on May
12, 2013. It was precisely due to petitioner's delayed action that Spouses
Osabel sought the intervention of AO Rafana..'1 and then the Office of the
President to get their case finaHy resolved. Notably, petitioner did not cite a..11y
complicated questions of fact or la,v which could have justified his delay in
the disposition of the case for four (4) .long years since it got filed. His
indifference and negligence definitely tarnished the image of his office, for

86
Rollo, pp. 85-86.
87
Civil Service Commission v. Catar.,;;fan, G.R. No. 22465 l, July 3 . 20 I 9.
88 Office of the Ombudsman v. Tongson, s:; l Phil. l 64~ '! 91 (2006).
89
G.R. No. 237129., December 09, 2020.

I
Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

which he should be held llable for cond1,ct prejudicial to the best interest of
tht service. 90

In Miranda v. CSC, 91 the Court held petitioner Miranda guilty of

Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service after she belatedly
submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA) the financial reports of West
Visayas Medical Center for four (4) fiscal years. The Court ruled that the delay
resulted in prejudice to the go':ernment and the public in general as the
purpose of prompt submission of financial reports to the COA is for the
effective monitoring of the agency's compliance with the prescribed
government accounting and auditing rules and regulations, essential in
management's decision-making, planning and budgeting.

Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description
of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service. Jurispnldence, however, instructs that for an act to
constitute such an administrative offense, the act need not be related to or
connected with the public officer's official functions. As long as the
questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his or her public
office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or
employee. 92

The next question is: May a single act or omission of a public officer or
employee give rise to two or more infractions lh'1der the RRACCS?

\Ve 1ule in the affirmative.

In CSC v. Catacutan, 93 the Court held respondent liable for both simple
neglect of duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. For
simple neglect of duty, the Court said that she incurred this liabiiity when she
failed to sort and attach a bar code to a trial court's decision declaring a
marriage void, resulting in the OSG's failure to appeal the decision within the
reglementa..---y period; while for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service, the Court ruled that Catacutan became liable therefor when her failure
to ;xoperly discharge her duty Jed to the forfeiture of the state's right to appeal.

So must it be.

Imposable Penalty in G.R. No. 235274

For simple neglect of duty, petilioner claims that his delayed action on
94
the official co~espondences in question is punishable under Section 23 of
Republic Act No. 8770 (RA. 8T!O), not the RRACCS.

90 Rolio, p. 86.
91 G.R. No. 213502, February 18, 2019.
92 Villanuevav. F!SINSP. Reodique, G.R. No. 221647, Nov(':mber27, 2018,
93 G.R. No. 224651, July 3, 2019.
94 Section 2,3. Formal lnvestigation. --
Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

Again, petitioner's inv::icJtion cf Section 23 is misplaced. This

provision does not refer to offi~er;; of the 0MB like petitioner but to "the
proper disciplinary authority to ,,vho,-=:i the 0MB may refer certain complaints
for the institution of appropriate adrni;;istrative proceedings against erring
public officers." A prescribed fine c•f not more than Five Thousand Pesos
(PS,000.00) may be imposed on
~he proper disciplinary authority who incurs
delay, without just cause in acting on ,my referral made by the 0MB.

This brings us to the RRACCS, governing the infractions committed

by petitioner between the years 2011 and 2012.

Under the RRACCS, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense

punishable by suspension for one (l) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
for the first infraction. 95

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, on the other

hand, is a grave offense, for which, the penalty of suspension for six (6)
months and one (1) day to one ( l) year for the first offense and dismissal
from service for the second offense, should be imposed. 96

Under Section 50 of the RRACCS, if the respondent is found guilty of

two (2) or more charges or counts, 1J1e penalty to be imposed should be that
corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as
aggravating circumstances.

To be sure, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is

more serious than simple neglect of duty. Consequently, the penalty for
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service shall be imposed, with
simple neglect of duty as an aggravating circumstance. Notably, this
aggravating circumstance is deemed offset by the mitigating circumstance of
twenty five (25) years of government service credited by the 0MB in
petitoner's favor pursuant to Section 48 of the R.RJ.-\CCS. Here, applying
Section 49 paragraph (d) of the RRACCS, 97 petitioner shall suffer the medium
period of the prescribed penalty i.e., suspension from the service for nine (9)

(1) Administrative in".estigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman shall be in accordance with its
rules of procedure and consistent with due process.
(2) At its option, the Office of the Ombudsman may refer ceitain complaints to the proper disciplinary
authority for the institurion of appropriate administrative proceedings against erring public officers or
employees, which shaii be determined within the period prescribed in the civil service law. Any delay without
just cause in acting on any referral made by the Office of the Ombudsman sh:::ill be a ground for administrative
action against the officers or employee~ to \Vhom such referrals are addres.sed a:r.d shall constitute a graft
offense punishabk by a fine of not exccetiing ?iv~ tiwusand pesos (PS,000.00).
95
Office of the Ombudsman v. Tongson, 5'.! l Phil. 164, 191 (2006)
96 Section 46 (B) of the RACCS.
97Section 49. T\fanner of lrripo;;ition. -- \1\/hcn app-Hr..at-k, the impc:::it!on of the penalty may be made in
accordance with the manner pn;vided hi.":rein 0dow:

XXX XXX XXX

d. Vlhere aggravating and rn!tigs.ting circumsti:i:r;.t:e:-:. ar=;! presem, paragraph [a) shall be applied where there
are more mitigming circumstances prescr.1'; parng:!'aph [bj 3ha!i be J.pplicd when the circumstances equally
offset each other; and pa,agmph [i.;] shaJ;_ bl:'. aJ-'.'plk:d wli.z:n -i:h,::re are. more aggravatir!g circumst:.'!_nces.

I
Decision ]9 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

months. In view, however, of the expiration of petitioner's term of office as

Deputy Ombudsman, the OMB,. in lieu of suspension, appropriately imposed
a fine equivalent to petitioner's salary for 5ix (6) months.

G.R. No. 235275

Petitioner is guilty of grtn'e

misconduct

As aptly found by the OJ\Jffi and the Court of Appeals, petitioner, taking
undue advantage of his position as Deputy Ombudsman, facilitated the
appointment of Arquellano (his family house boy) as an Administrative Aide
II in the Ol\1B and had him assigned to his office. Arquellano continued to
work as his family house boy even after he already got employed with the
government. His salaries supposedly as a government employee inured to the
personal benefit of petitioner and his family as Arquellano continued to serve
as a house boy, instead of rendering full time service to The government as
Administrative Aide II.

We quote the pertinent findings of the 0MB, viz.:

DO Monteroso admitted that he made Arquellano perform domestic

chores for him and his family during the latter's tenure as a paid employee
ofOMB Mindanao. He said he allowed Arquellano to simultaneously work
as his house helper and an Administrative Aide II of his office. He defended
his decision,. claiming t..hat, an1ong other things, Arquellano rec'::ived
separate compensation for both engagements. However, DO Monteroso
failed to substantiate this claim of separate compensation by proof of
payment of his salaries for Arquellano's domestic employment. \Vithout this
proof, it is quite clear that Arquel!ano was performing both his regular
functions at the Office of the Ombudsman as Administrative Aide and as a
domestic helper at the Monteroso household and solely compensated by the
government.

Undoubtedly, DO Monteroso unfairly took advantage of A.rque1lano

when he made his subordinate perfonn household chores for him and his
fan1ily during the latter's tenure as a civil servant without proper
compensation. As m1 employee ofOMB Mindanao, .l'uquel!ano should have
been only perfmming officia! functions <luring business hours. DO
l\1onteroso should not have cornpelk<l .\rquellano to perform domestic
tasks such as taking care of his pets and deaning p1ivate 1notor vehicles
before .and ifter office hours.

No'i. only were DO Monteroso's actions 0.viilful and intentional; these

were cleady illegal, wrongful and improper, especially considering that
0MB Mindanao was paying foe ArqueHano's salary. He like'kise took
advantage ofOMB Mindarn,o when he facilitated the agency's appointment
of A.rqueilann as an 1~dministrative A.irJe L1 and the latter:s inclusion in the
office payroll. knov:ing fully ,;;ell 1J1at Arquellano was already working as
his house helper. In effect, DO Montc,roso and his family benefitted from

If
Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

the services rendered by Arq\J<:,ihtn,,, wh-ich, in tum, were paid for by 0MB
Mindanao using public fi.«ids.'''·

But this is not all. Petit.ionc;r fu..rthcr used Arquellano as a dummy to

facilitate his shady _transactions involving huge amounts of bank deposits. Per
Arquellano's complaint affidavit and supporting documentary evidence,
petitioner instructed him to oj_Jt:n bank accounts in his name with Metro Bank
and later, with BDO, to which acrounts petitioner funneled a huge amount of
deposit of P300,000.00. 99 Arque!iano admitted to being questioned by Metro
Bank regarding the source or sourn,s of this deposit but he was not able to
give a proper explanation. Even then and despite the closure of the bank
account by Metro Bank itself. pctiti.oncr tad him open another bank account,
this time with BDO. He did th,c; ~ame thing to this account, using it to funnel
huge an1ounts of deposit i.e., P300,000.00, P300,000.00, P250,000.00 and
P200,000.00 totaling Pl,050,000.00. Arquellano stated under oath he never
deposited a single centavo to the twin accounts. Each amount of deposit was
extremely disproportionate to his financial capacity as a government clerical
employee. 100 He asserted that since he could no longer bear how he was being
used by petitioner, he was constrained to resign altogether as a government
employee and as petitioner's family house boy.

On this score, we refer to the relevant findings of the 0MB, viz.:

With regard to Arguellano's claim that DO Monteroso used him as

a "dummy" to facilitate bank transaction,, the latter simply denied the same,
insisting that said testimony was hearsay.

This Board considers Do Monteroso's denial to he inherently weak

because it is self-serving and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence. In stark contrast. Arquellano. in addition lo his sworn statement,
submitted numerous finrncial records. including bank statements and
certifications to support his allegations. ln fact, he even op,mcd the bank
accounts for the Pa11el •s examination, executing the written consent/waiver
nccessaiy therefor. Arquellai,o was clearly attesting to the relevant facts
pertaining to the subject bank account from his own personal knowledge.
Montcroso's claim of hearsay is simply haseiess. 101

In his defense, petitioner invokes a bare denial and a distorted

hypothesis that since Arquellano was only a low ranking government
employee, everyLhing he said against him was just a figment of his
imagination. He also harps on the fact that the questioned deposits were
reported by Arquellano in his exit SALN

We are not persuaded. Nc:\ther t,0:1tioner's bare deiiial nor his distorted
hypothesis carries any prub~,t;ve vaiue. It does not suffice to negate the
incriminating evidence aga.mst. him :;n record, specifically the credible and

98
Rolla. pp. 408-409.
99
Id at 87.
100
Id ar-'i'.13-4:4.
lOi Id. at 409.
Decision 2) G.R. Nos. 235274-75

positive statement of Arqudlano and the supporting bar1k records he

submitted to the special panei.

As for Arquellano's exit SAU ✓ where he reported the bank deposits in

question, he convincingly explai;ned,

Nais kong.ilahac/ na a.'![! mga assets na naka-deklara sa aking exit

SALN (!wlakip ng salaysay na imi n[aj may petsang 1'darch 6, 2012 ay
pawang totoo kasama nr, ang dew/ye sa aking cash in bank na may
halagang Pl5,000.00 lamang at w,g l,1hat ng pera sa BDO Savings
Account No. 3370049567 ay pag-aari ni Deputy Omoudsman Humprey T.
Monteroso. 102

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule

of action, more particularly, unla'>vful behavior, or gross neglect of duty by a
public officer. The misconduct is considered to be grave if it also involves
other elements such as corruption or the willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules. 10:;

To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or

be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a
public officer. On the other hand, when the element of corruption or clear
intent to violate the law or flagrantly disregard an established rule is manifest,
the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct. 104

Conuption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act or

acts of officials or fiduciary persons who unlawfully and VvTongfully use their
stations or character to procure some benefit for themselves or for another
person, contrary to duty and. the rights of others. 105

Here, the actions of petitioner are undoubtedly imbued with corruption.

He unlawfully and wrongfully used his position to procure pecunia,---y and non-
pecuniary benefit for himself, contrary to ]us duty and with flagrant disregard
of the rights of others. 106 He is liable for grave misconduct.

Peiitioner is guilty of grave abuse of

authority

Oppression, also known as gnwe abuse of authority, is a misdemeanor

commit1ed by a public officer, 'Nho :.mder color of his office, wrongfully
inflict upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury. It is
an act of cruelty, severity, o:: t":<s.:,c,c:si,_1-:0 use of authority.' 07

102
id a~ 556.
103 OJjice of the Omfmdsmarz-J\,findanao ·,,_ ,\'.h!t.'!:tl, &06 ('i1iL 649,655 (2_003).
104 C~ljlCe ,.)_fth1;;· Dmhud:mum (:. fvfagno, 592 Pllii. o..:'.J, ,;sg (20i7).
105 Domingo v. Civil Service Commissmn, G R No. ~(' }6:>.tl, .hmc i 7, 2020.

106 Jd

w7 Chua v. Cordova A.rv1. No. P-I 9-31.j'.)Q, Sr.µt~m~-~:r 'i', '2004.

1
Decision . 22. G.R. Nos. 235274-75

Acting under the color of his office and in excess of his authority,
petitioner berated and humiliated Chief Administrative Officer Peligro when
she assisted the special panel in o~taining copies of petitioner's HR files. He
alsa assigned another person to take custody of the HR files and imposed as a
condition for access or release thereof his prior permission. Notably, Peligro
was able to request HR files from the Human Resource Management Office
(HRMO) prior to petitioner assigning another person to handle the HR files.
Even then, he made clear that even the request of the special panel for his HR
records should not be allowed without his pennission.

Evidently, he was using his authority to thwart the ongoing

investigation of the cases against him especially the possible discovery of
damaging evidence which his HR records might reveal. As a high-ranking
official, he was expected to set a good example for his subordinates by
cooperating with investigation conducted by the special panel for the purpose
of unearthing the truth. As it was though, not only did he fail to cooperate with
the investigation, his actions also appeared to have suppressed vital
documentary evidence just because he feared the same may be used against
him.

Verily, he is guilty of oppression or grave abuse of authority. Hiding

under the color of his office, he humiliated, berated, and blocked Peligro from
performing her duty as the Chief Administrative Officer ofOMB-IvHN tasked
by the special panel toretrieve and submit to petitioner's I--IR files relative to
their fact finding investigation on him. He acted as if the HR files were his
private property. He abused and exceeded his authority obviously for the
purpose of hiding the truth.i0 8

The Court, in Office of the Court Administrator v. Yu, 109 held

respondent Judge Eliza Yu guilty of grave abuse of authority when she issued
a show cause order against her fellow Judges and court personnel who sought
copies of her records for purposes of producing evidence against her in the
administrative case her fellow Judges and the concerned comi employees
initiated against her. The issuance of the show-cause order represented clear
abuse of court processes and revealed her arrogance in the exercise of her
authority as a judicial officer. We emphatically clarified that only the Court
has the power to issue directives to paTties in an administrative case to appear
and present their respective arguments in support of their position.

To be sure, violence or intimidation are not the only indicators of

harassment and oppression. Any act which torments, pesters, annoys, irritates,
and disturbs another and prejudices a person may constitute harassment and
oppression. 110

108
Chua v. Cordova, A.I'v'l. No. P-19-3960, Septemb~r 7, 2020.
109 A.M. Nos. MTJ-12-18i3, 12-1-09-MeTC, MTJ-13-l836, MTJ-12-1815, OCA !Pl Nos. ll-2398-MTJ.
11-2399-MTJ, 11-2378-MTJ, 12-2456-MTJ & A.M. No. MTJ-13-182 !, 800 Phil. 307-458 (2016).
i!O Re.ves, Jr. v. Belr:t:ario and Malicdem, 612 PhiL 936_, 96_2 (2009).
Decision 23 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

The government cannot tolerate in its service grave abuse of authority

and grave misconduct, even if the public officers perform their duties correctly
and well. For by reason of their government positions, they are given more
opportunity to commit acts of oppression against their fellow men, even
against offices and entities of the government other than the offices they are
employed in. Too, by reason of their offices, they enjoy and possess certain
influence and power which renders the victims of their grave misconduct and
oppression less disposed to resist or counteract. 111

Imposable Penalty in G.R. No. 235275

Grave misconduct is punishable with dismissal from the service while

oppression or grave abuse of authority, with suspension for six (6) months
and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the
service for the second offense. 112

Here, grave misconduct is the more serious offense. It carries the

supreme penalty of dismissal from the service. In view, however, of the
expiration of petitioner's term of office, he can no longer be dismissed from
the service. Hence, in lieu of dismissal, a fine was correctly imposed on
petitioner equivalent to his salary for six (6) months plus all the accessory
penalties provided by law.

Hence, in addition to the imposed fine, petitioner should also suffer the
accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of
eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from
taking the civil service examinations that the penalty of dismissal carried. A
contrary holding would have the undesirable effect of giving the erring
employee the opportunity to re-enter public office by the simple expedient of
the expiration ofhis term of office as Deputy Ombudsman. 113

ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated July

20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143404 and CA-G.R.
SP No. 143405 is AFFIRMED.

In G.R; No. 235274, petitioner HUMPHREY T. MONTEROSO is

found GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE. In lieu
of suspension, he shall pay a FINE equivalent to his salary for SIX (6)
MONTHS within thirty (30) days from finaEty of this Decision. In case of
delayed payment, the unpaid amount shall earn legal interest of six percent

lil See Remolona v. Civil Service Cornmissior1) 414 Phi~. 590~ 601 (200]).
112 Section 4 7. Penalty of Fine. - The foiiowing are the guide! ines for the penalty of fine:

XXX XXX

6. The fine shall be paid to the agency imposing the same, computed on the basis of respondent's salary at
the time the de.cision becomes final and exec11tory.

113 Supra, note l 12.

1
Decision 24 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

(6%) per annum.

In G.R. No. 235275, petitioner HUMPHREY T. MONTEROSO is

GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and GRAVE ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY. He is ordered DISJVIISSED from the service. In view,
however, of his retirement from the service, for which, the imposed penalty
of DISMISSAL can no longer be implemented, he is ordered to pay a FINE
equivalent to his salary for SIX (6) MONTHS within thirty (30) days from
finality of this Decision. In case of delayed payment, the unpaid amount shall
earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum.

The ACCESSORY PENAL TIES of forfeiture of retirement benefits,

cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public
office, and bar from taking the civil service examinations are imposed on
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

AM . AZARO-JAVIER
As'sociate Justice
Decision 25 G.R. Nos. 235274-75

WE CONCUR:

·.GESMUNDO

Chairperson

On official leave
S. CAGUIOA l\1ARIO V. LOPEZ
Associate Justice

JHOS~OPEZ
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.