OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS CARMENCITA CORONEL

FACTS:

Respondent Coronel is a Senior Acctg Processor with Salary Grade 10, Linamon Water District.
Thereafter, respondent was designated as Officer in Charge until General manager shall have
been appointed.

October 14, 1998, respondent called for a meeting the officers of diff water districts in Lanao Del
Norte and Sur, as well as advisers from Local Water Utilities Admin. Lunch time, they opted to
continue the meeting at Marvilla store in Iligan City. 10 people came. As the host of the meeting,
respondent paid for the lunch.

Respondent claimed for reimbursement of her expenses chargeable against representation and
entertainment account of her office. The voucher was approved and respondent got her
reimbursement of 1,213.

Nov 17 1998 – Pedro Sausal was appointed General Manager of Linamon water district. 1999 –
he filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn letter complaint against respondent for
dishonesty. He alleges that the respondent falsified the sach invoice she submitter for
reimbursement, making it appear as luncheon bill when in fact, it was only 213 as reflected in
the photocopy of original duplicate of cash invoice.

Office of the Ombudsman finds and so hold respondent guilty for dishonest, dismissed from the
service, forfeiture of all leave credits.

Respondent filed motion for reconsideration but the Ombudsman disapproved saying that
the original decision stands.

Respondent filed for the nullification of petitioner’s disapproval order for having deprived her of
due process.

(the court considered respondent’s petition then as a petition for review under rule 43 and
referred it to he CA for adjudication on the merits)

Ruling of the CA:

That the corroborating affidavits submitted by the respondent for the first time adequately
supported her innocence. The court reiterated the investigating officer’s finding that he
administrative liability for dishonesty had not been proven.

• That the ombudsman did not consider the credible evidence presented by
respondent in her motion for reconsideration

• Did not give any justification for disapproval of the investigating officer’s
ruling.

FIRST ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner’s disapproval order , expressed as marginal notation, was a

valid decision or order

Respondent contention: that it was violative of due process for failing to state the basis of the
action.

Petitioner contention: cited Olivarez vs Sandiganbayan, OMB maintains that by referring to

the original decision, the notation adopts the finding of facts and law already discussed.

SC ruled: the subject notation “the original decision stands” was a valid resolution. It actually
adopted the factual and legal conclusions of the original decision. Hence, respondent should
find her bearings from that holdings.

Respondent not denied of due process. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due
process lies simply in the opportunity to explain one’s side or to seek reconsideration for
the action or ruling complained of. What is proscribed is the absolute lack or notice or
hearing.

In the case at bar, respondent was given every opportunity to be heard. Her intelligible
pleadings before the CA and this court indicate that she knew the bases for the ombudsman’s
decision. In fact, she very ably pinpointed its alleged errors that she thought would merit our
review. Not having been left in the dark as to how it was reached, respondent’s insistence on a
denial of due process has no legal leg to stand on.

SECOND ISSUE: Admission of new evidence

Petitioner contention: that motion for reconsideration may be filed if a newly discovered
evidence would amterially affect the order or decision.

• That the affidavits of restaurant proprietor and members of luncheon

meeting could not qualify as newly discovered evidence. These were allegedly available
and could have been readily produced.
Respondent contention: that rules of procedure must not be strictly applied to frustrate
substantial justice.

Newly discovered evidence – which already exists prior to or during a trial, but whose
existence is not known to the offering litigant; or though known, could not have been secured
and presented during the trial despite reasonable diligence.

Petitioner is correct. Affidavits do not constitute “newly discovered evidence”.

Respondents do not prove that even with reasonable diligence, she could not have obtained
them during the investigation. There is no showing whatsoever that her corroborating witnesses
hesitated or declined to give their testimonies.

Forgotten evidence – evidence already in existence or available before or during a trial; known
to or obtainable by the party offering it; could have been offered in a seasonable manner, were it
not for the oversight or forgetfulness of the party or the counsel.

NOT ALLOWED. It results in a piecemeal presentation of evidence, not in accord with

orderly justice and serves only to delay proceedings.

THIRD ISSUE: absence of Substantial evidence

Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the forgotten evidence of respondent, There is a

basis for reversing ombudsman decision and for affirming the CA decision. SC find the evidence
presented by the complainant insufficient to support his serious charge that she was dishonest.

The original OR - P1,213

The photocopy of the Original duplicate of the receipt – P213.

Unfortunately, Complainant Sausal failed to prove that it was indeed respondent’s receipt that
was falsified. The evidence is equivocal. Besides, given that there were 8-10 attendees in the
luncheon meeting, a bill of P1,213 was not entirely improbable, even in 1998.

Administrative cases, quantum of proof is substantial evidence – such relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Complainant did not present evidence to support his theory that the photocopy of the original
duplicate reflected the true amount or that the OR had been indeed falsified. He could have
obtained an affidavit from the restaurant proprietor or employee who had issued the receipt, to
attest to its due execution and authenticity.

Respondent Carmencita Coronel is hereby exonerated of the charges.