SECOND DIVISION
JESUS C. OCAMPO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.114683
January 18, 2000
-versus-
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN
AND MAXIMO ECLIPSE,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BUENA, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This Petition for
Certiorari
seeks to nullify the Resolutions of the Ombudsman in OMB-Adm-O-92-0020
dated November 18, 1993[1]
and February 28, 1994[2]
which dismissed petitioner from the service, with forfeiture of
benefits
and special perpetual disqualification to hold office in the government
or any government-owned or controlled corporation, and which denied the
motion for reconsideration thereof, respectively.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner is the Training
Coordinator of. NIACONSULT, INC., a subsidiary of the National
Irrigation
Administration.cralaw:red
On March 21, 1988, K.N.
Paudel of the Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal (ADBN) wrote a
letter
to NIACONSULT requesting a training proposal on small-scale community
irrigation
development.[3]
On November 17, 1988,
petitioner as the training coordinator of the NIACONSULT, sent a
letter-proposal
requested by ABDN.[4]
Another letter was sent by petitioner on January 31, 1989 to Dr. Peiter
Roeloffs of ADBN confirming the availability of NIACONSULT to conduct
the
training program and formally requesting advance payment of thirty
(30%)
percent of the training fees[5]
in the amount of US $9,600.00 or P204,960.00.cralaw:red
NIACONSULT conducted
the training program for six Nepalese Junior Engineers from February 6
to March 7, 1989.[6]
ADBN, thru its representative, Deutsche Gesselschaft ) Technische
Zusummenarbeit
(GTZ) Gmbh Technical Cooperation of the Federal Republic of Germany
paid
to the petitioner the agreed training fee in two installments of
P61,488.00
and P143,472.00.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1) GTZ
Philippine Voucher No. 5166 signed by Mr, Jesus C. Ocampo, indicating
that
he received P61,488.00 as 30% deposit for the training
2) GTZ
Philippine Check No. 0227431 for P61,488.00 payable to the Order of Mr.
Jesus C. Ocampochanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3) NIACONSULT,
Inc. Official Receipt No. 1071 acknowledging payment of P61,488.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4) GTZ
Voucher no. 5822 signed by Mr. Jesus C. Ocampo showing that he received
P143,472.00 as final paymentchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5) GTZ
Check No.633554 for P143,472.00 payable to the Order of Mr. Jesus C.
Ocampochanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6) NIACONSULT,
Inc. Official Receipt No.1095 acknowledging payment of P143,472.00.]
On April 1, 1991, NIACONSULT,
through its president, Wilfredo S. Tiongco, wrote a letter to
petitioner
demanding the turn-over of the total training fee paid by ADBN which
petitioner
personally received.[8]
Despite receipt of the letter, petitioner failed to remit the said
amount
prompting NIACONSULT through its president, Maximino Eclipse, to file
an
administrative case before respondent OMBUDSMAN for serious misconduct
and/or fraud or willful breach of trust.[9]
Finding enough basis
to proceed with the administrative case, the Administrative
Adjudication
Bureau of the respondent OMBUDSMAN, on February 17, 1992, issued an
order[10]
requiring petitioner to file his counter-affidavit within ten (10) days
from receipt with a caveat that failure to file the same would be
deemed
a waiver of his right to present evidence. Despite notice, petitioner
failed
to comply with the said order.cralaw:red
A year later, or on
March 17, 1993, respondent OMBUDSMAN issued another order[11]
giving petitioner another chance to file his counter-affidavit and
controverting
evidence. Again, petitioner failed. Thus, on April 14, 1993, private
respondent
was required to appear before the OMBUDSMAN to present evidence to
support
its complaint.[12]
Thereafter, on November
18, 1993, respondent OMBUDSMAN issued the assailed Resolution, the
decretal
portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Withal, for such dishonesty,
untrustworthiness, and conduct prejudicial to the service as
established
by overwhelming evidences, it is respectfully recommended that
respondent
Jesus C. Ocampo be discharged from the service, with forfeiture of
benefits
and special perpetual disqualification to hold office in the government
or any government-owned or controlled corporation; without prejudice to
any civil action NIACONSULT, Inc., may institute to recover the amount
so retained by the respondent.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED."[13]
On February 16, 1994
petitioner moved for reconsideration and to re-open the case claiming
that
he was denied due process in that the administrative case was resolved
on the basis of the complainant's evidences, without affording him the
opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and to present his evidence.
Petitioner
likewise contends that he was not given access to the records of the
subject
transaction vital to his defense and in the preparation of his
counter-affidavit
despite his verbal requests to the graft investigator.[14]
The respondent OMBUDSMAN
denied the motion on February 28, 1994.[15]
Aggrieved, petitioner
filed the instant petition basically reiterating his arguments in his
motion
for reconsideration.cralaw:red
We gave due course to
the petition and required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.cralaw:red
While the case is pending,
petitioner filed a Manifestation on May 24, 1997[16]
stating that the criminal complaint for estafa and falsification filed
against him based on the same facts or incidents which gave rise to the
administrative case, was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court on
February
24, 1997. With the dismissal of the criminal case, petitioner manifests
that the administrative case can no longer stand on its own and
therefore
should be dismissed.[17]
Such manifestation is
not well taken.cralaw:red
The dismissal of the
criminal case will not foreclose administrative action filed against
petitioner
or give him a clean bill of health in all respects. The Regional Trial
Court, in dismissing the criminal complaint, was simply saying that the
prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable
doubt, a condition sine qua non for conviction. The lack or absence of
proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence
whatsoever for there is another class of evidence which, though
insufficient
to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in civil cases;
this is preponderance of evidence. Then too, there is the "substantial
evidence" rule in administrative proceedings which merely requires such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support
a conclusion.[18]
Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as
the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and
administrative
proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily
be binding on the other.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Going now to the crux
of the controversy, petitioner asserts that he was denied the
opportunity
to be heard.cralaw:red
The essence of due process
is an opportunity to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal
presentation
but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable
than
oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings,
moreover,
technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied;
administrative
due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict
judicial
sense.[20]
Petitioner has been
amply accorded the opportunity to be heard. He was required to answer
the
complaint against him. In fact, petitioner was given considerable
length
of time to submit his counter-affidavit. It took more than one year
from
February 17, 1992 before petitioner was considered to have waived his
right
to file his counter-affidavit and the formal presentation of the
complainant's
evidence was set. The March 17, 1993 order was issued to give the
petitioner
a last chance to present his defense, despite the private respondent's
objections. But petitioner failed to comply with the second
order. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, petitioner's failure
to present evidence is solely of his own making and cannot escape his
own
remissness by passing the blame on the graft investigator. While the
respondent
OMBUDSMAN has shown forebearance, petitioner has not displayed
corresponding
vigilance. He therefore cannot validly claim that his right to due
process
was violated. We need only to reiterate that a party who chooses not to
avail of the opportunity to answer the charges cannot complain of a
denial
of due process.[21]
Petitioner's claim that
he was not given any notice of the order declaring him to have waived
his
right to file his counter-affidavit and of allowing the private
respondent
to present evidence ex-parte is unmeritorious.cralaw:red
The orders of respondent
OMBUDSMAN requiring petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit and
which
was admittedly received by the latter explicitly contain a warning that
if no counter-affidavit was filed within the given period, a waiver
would
be considered and the administrative proceedings shall continue
according
to the rules. Thus, respondent OMBUDSMAN need not issue another order
notifying
petitioner that he has waived his right to file a counter-affidavit. In
the same way, petitioner need not be notified of the ex-parte hearing
for
the reception of private respondent's evidence. As such, he could not
have
been expected to appear at the ex-parte hearing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With regard to the petitioner's
claim that he made requests for the production of the documents alleged
to be material to his defense, the record is bereft of any proof of
such
requests. If it were true that the graft investigator did not act on
such
requests, petitioner should have filed the proper motion before the
respondent
OMBUDSMAN for the production of the documents or to compel the
respondent
complainant to produce whatever record necessary for his defense.
Petitioner
did not. It was only after the respondent OMBUDSMAN issued the assailed
resolution of November 18, 1993 that he bewailed the alleged failure of
respondent's graft investigator to require the production of the
records
of the subject transaction.cralaw:red
The record of this case
indisputably shows that petitioner is guilty of dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the government when he failed to remit the payment of
the
training program conducted by NIACONSULT. The evidence presented
sufficiently
established that petitioner received the payments of ADBN through its
representative,
GTZ, Philippines the amount of US $9,600.00 and that he failed to
account
this and remit the same to the corporation. All these acts constitute
dishonesty
and untrustworthiness.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolutions of the
respondent
OMBUDSMAN are hereby AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Annex F, pp. 61- 66, Rollo.
[2]
Annex H, pp. 73 -75, Id.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 31-33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 34-42.
[5]
Id.,p.43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 44.
[7]
See pp, 45-50
[8]
Id., p. 134.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Annex B, pp. 25-30, Rollo.
[10]
Annex C, p. 57, Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Annex D, p. 59, Id.
[12]
Annex E, p. 60, id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Annex, F, p. 66, Rollo.
[14]
Annex G, pp. 68- 72, Rollo.
[15]
Annex H, pp. 73-75, Rollo.
[16]
Pp. 252-253, Rol1o.
[17]
Pp. 254-262, Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ramon G. Enriquez, 218 SCRA 1
(1993)
[19]
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Matas, 247 SCRA 9, 22-23 (1995)
[20]
Concerned Officials of the MWSS vs. Hon. Omubudsman Conrado Vasquez,
240
SCRA 502.
[21]
Esber vs. Sto. Tomas, 225 SCRA 664. |