G.R. No. 174826 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, vs. Engr. ALFONSO P. ESPIRITU.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing discussion, and finding merit on the herein appeal, ARMC/Appellant is hereby advised to refile its application for Building Permit for the subject proposed 3-storey Dormitory and Support services building with the Office of the Building Official of Marikina, which office, upon Applicants full compliance with all the requirements , shall, within the period prescribed by the National Building Code and its IRR, issue the Building Permit applied for. [5] (Emphasis supplied.) On 3 October 2001, the DOH-ARMC re-filed its application for the building permit. Respondent required the DOH-ARMC to also submit the business permit of the project contractor, A.H. Construction. In a letter dated 28 November 2001, the DOH-ARMC informed A.H. Construction of said requirement and advised it x x x to submit to the City Engineers Office (its) renewed Business Permit License for the immediate release of the x x x permits (applied for) x x x. [6] In the meantime, upon learning of the decision of the DPWH Secretary, respondent sought its reconsideration. In a letter dated 13 February 2001, the DPWH Secretary denied the reconsideration sought for and said that unless restrained by higher authority, decision dated 14 September 2001, stands. Despite being notified by the DOH-ARMC to submit its renewed business permit license to the City Engineers Office, A.H. Construction failed to do so. On 4 June 2002, Huevos filed with petitioner Office of the Ombudsman a complaint-affidavit for Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against respondent. The case was docketed as OMB-CA-02-0235-F (OMB-CC-02-03387). [7] In compliance with the order of petitioner, respondent filed a counter-affidavit [8] denying Huevos allegations. He claimed that the denial of the application for the issuance of the building permit was with sufficient grounds and was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. After the parties submitted their respective memoranda, petitioner rendered its Decision dated 16 January 2003 finding respondent administratively liable for Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed the penalty of suspension for a period of six months and one day without pay. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this Office finds respondent ALFONSO P. ESPIRITU guilty as charged and is hereby meted the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY pursuant to Section 22, par. 6 of Executive Order No. 292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987. The Mayor, Marikina City, is hereby directed to implement the aforesaid decision in accordance with law and upon finality thereof and to inform this office of the action taken thereon within seven (7) days from its implementation. [9] The petitioner explained its Decision in this manner: From the evidence presented by both parties, this Office believes that a substantial g