G.R. No. 204171 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. WILFREDO B. AGUSTINO, RUDY G. CANASTILLO, EDWARD G. CANASTILLO, CECIL C. CALIGAN.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence to hold respondents Regional Director WILFREDO B. AGUSTINO and Assistant Regional Director RUDY G. CANASTILLO, both of the . Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Regional Office No. 6, Iloilo City, and respondents Acting Head EDWARD G. CANASTILLO and Acting Assistant Head CECIL C. CALIGAN, both of the Iloilo Sub-Engineering District Office, Sta. Barbara, administratively guilty of Grave Misconduct, they should [be] meted out the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with all the accessory penalties as provided for by law. SO DECIDED. [9] The respondents moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the Ombudsman-Visayas in its April 21, 2005 order, which was approved by Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro on March 6, 2008. [10] Aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the CA. CA Ruling In its assailed November 23, 2011 Decision, [11] the CA granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the Ombudsman's finding of administrative liability against the respondents. The CA was of the view that the evidence presented to prove the respondents' culpability for grave misconduct was insufficient. It found that the Ombudsman erroneously concluded that P11,618,803.46, the amount allotted for 28,404.38 cu. m. of rock excavation under Change Order No. 1, was the actual amount expended, when Change Order No. 2 decreased the volume to 16,518.00 cu. m. costing P6,738,894.23. The CA further stated that Change Order No. 2 should not be considered as a mere afterthought absent proof that it was issued to circumvent the law. It held that " [u]nless it can be shown cogently and clearly that Change Order No. 2 was issued to circumvent the law, [it] will always uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, and authenticity of official documents." [12] The CA cited the "Statement of Work Accomplished" from October 1, 2002 to December 15, 2002 and the corresponding disbursement voucher presented by the respondents to prove that the volume of solid rock excavated was only 16,518.00 cu. m. costing P6,738,894.23. Between these documents presented by the respondents and the mere speculations of the Ombudsman, the CA chose the former to prevail, under the principle that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving his allegations. The Ombudsman filed its motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA in the assailed September 27, 2012 Resolution. Hence, this petition. STATEMENT OF ISSUES I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO PROVE RESPONDENT'S CULPABILITY FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT WAS INSUFFICIENT; II REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6670, SECTION 27, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," STATES THAT "FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN WHEN SUPPORTED BY