Crebello vs. Office of the Ombudsman

A final and unappealable decision of the Office of the Ombudsman absolving a respondent in an administrative case may still be assailed by petition for certiorari on proof of grave abuse of discretion; and the doctrine of condonation, being a matter of defense, must be specifically invoked by the respondent elective public official and cannot be applied by the OMB on its own.

Domingo Crebello was the complainant in an administrative nepotism case against Mayor Timoteo T. Capoquian, Jr. and Vice Mayor Enrique C. Gomba of Gamay, Northern Samar. The case concerned appointments to the Board of Directors of the Gamay Water District, including Raquel Capoquian, sister of Capoquian, Jr., and Clarita Gomba, wife of Gomba. The governing provisions were Section 59 in relation to Section 67 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (Administrative Code of 1987) and Section 49 in relation to Section 55 of Executive Order No. 292 (Civil Service Law). The OMB’s rules made certain decisions final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07, implementing Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770; the condonation doctrine, earlier recognized in Aguinaldo vs. Santos, was later abandoned in Morales vs. Court of Appeals.

Domingo Crebello initiated a letter-complaint dated September 10, 2009 alleging nepotism in the appointment of Raquel Capoquian, sister of Mayor Timoteo T. Capoquian, Jr., and Clarita Gomba, wife of Vice Mayor Enrique C. Gomba, to the Board of Directors of the Gamay Water District. A fact-finding investigation docketed as CPL-V-09-1076 was conducted. The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Gamay had passed and approved Resolution No. 10, Series of 2008, creating the Gamay Water District and empowering Capoquian, Jr. to appoint members of its Board of Directors. Raquel was appointed on March 5, 2008 and was related to Capoquian, Jr. within the prohibited third degree of consanguinity. Clarita was recommended by her husband, Gomba, as Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Bayan.

By the Final Evaluation Report of December 10, 2012, the case was recommended to be upgraded for preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication for two counts of criminal and administrative nepotism under Section 59 in relation to Section 67 of Presidential Decree No. 807 and Section 49 in relation to Section 55 of Executive Order No. 292. The Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas thereafter filed an administrative complaint for nepotism against Capoquian, Jr. and Gomba, docketed on April 3, 2014.

The OMB directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavits by Order of June 9, 2014, and their verified position papers by Order of January 13, 2015. Respondents failed to heed both directives, and their failure was taken as a waiver to controvert the charges. The OMB nevertheless resolved the case on the evidence on record. It found Gomba guilty of nepotism and meted the penalty of dismissal from service with its accessory penalties. As to Capoquian, Jr., the OMB found nepotism fully established against him but dismissed the charge as moot because of his re-election as Mayor during the 2010 elections, applying the doctrine of condonation following Aguinaldo vs. Santos.

Crebello moved for partial reconsideration, arguing that the doctrine of condonation had already been abandoned on November 10, 2015 through Morales vs. Court of Appeals, so the OMB could not apply it in favor of Capoquian, Jr. if the decision thereon had been approved on March 31, 2016. The OMB denied the motion, holding that the Morales ruling became final only on April 12, 2016, when the Supreme Court denied with finality its motion for clarification or motion for reconsideration. The OMB then issued Circular No. 17 on May 11, 2016, setting the cut-off date for the condonation doctrine and stating that it would no longer implement the doctrine from April 12, 2016 onwards.

Crebello assailed the OMB resolution in the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the petition on January 16, 2017 on the ground that appeals from OMB decisions in administrative disciplinary cases should be brought to the CA by petition for review under Rule 43, citing Fabian vs. Desierto. The CA denied reconsideration on June 14, 2017. The OMB’s finding that nepotism was established against Capoquian, Jr. was not disturbed; the controversy turned on the proper remedy and on the application of the condonation doctrine.

• Certiorari as Proper Remedy: Petitioner maintained that the OMB resolution absolving Capoquian, Jr., although final and unappealable, could still be challenged or assailed through a petition for certiorari.
• Abandonment of Condonation: Petitioner argued that the doctrine of condonation had been abandoned on November 10, 2015 through Morales vs. Court of Appeals; hence the OMB decision dated March 31, 2016 absolving Capoquian, Jr. because of condonation was unjustified.
• Condonation Not Invoked: Petitioner asserted that Capoquian, Jr. had not invoked condonation as a defense; the records showed that he did not submit his counter-affidavit or verified position paper despite notice, amounting to a waiver of his right to controvert the nepotism charge.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner alleged that the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in applying the condonation doctrine in favor of Capoquian, Jr.

• Finality of Morales Ruling: The OMB insisted that the abandonment of the condonation doctrine in Morales vs. Court of Appeals became final only on April 12, 2016, when the Supreme Court denied with finality its motion for clarification or motion for partial reconsideration.
• Circular No. 17: The OMB issued Office Circular No. 17 on May 11, 2016, declaring that it would no longer apply the defense of condonation starting April 12, 2016, except for open and pending administrative cases.
• Timing of OMB Decision: The OMB maintained that its March 31, 2016 decision absolving Capoquian, Jr. by reason of condonation might have been justified because it preceded the finality of the abandonment.

• Remedy from OMB Absolution: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petition for certiorari was the wrong remedy to assail the decision of the OMB absolving respondent Capoquian, Jr. from the administrative charge of nepotism.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Applying Condonation: Whether the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in applying the condonation doctrine in favor of respondent Capoquian, Jr.

• Remedy from OMB Absolution: Yes. The CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy. Although Rule 43 governs appeals from OMB administrative disciplinary decisions, an OMB decision absolving a respondent is final, executory, and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07; it may still be assailed by certiorari for grave abuse of discretion.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Applying Condonation: Yes. The OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in applying condonation because condonation is an affirmative defense that must be invoked by the respondent; Capoquian, Jr. did not file his counter-affidavit or verified position paper and did not raise it. The abandonment of condonation became final only on April 12, 2016, so the March 31, 2016 OMB decision might have been justified, but the OMB could not apply condonation on its own. He was declared guilty of nepotism; dismissal was moot due to his expired term, but the accessory penalties were imposed.

• Remedy from OMB Absolution: The Court ruled in Fabian vs. Desierto that appeals from OMB decisions in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. The CA’s reliance on Fabian vs. Desierto was misplaced because the OMB had absolved Capoquian, Jr. based on the doctrine of condonation. Under Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07, issued to implement Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision is final, executory, and unappealable. Since the absolution was final and no longer appealable, Rule 43, which defines a mode of appeal, did not apply. Petitioner was not without recourse. Citing Republic vs. Francisco, decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies declared by law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law; when such bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will reverse the factual findings. Thus, the OMB decision may be reviewed, modified, or reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The CA therefore wrongly dismissed the petition for certiorari.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Applying Condonation: The remaining issue involved the application of the doctrine of condonation, which is a question of law. The Court deemed it wiser not to remand the case to the CA and instead resolved the issue itself to avoid further delay and promote the speedy disposition of cases, citing Bunao vs. Social Security System. Petitioner submitted that the doctrine of condonation had been abandoned on November 10, 2015 through Morales vs. Court of Appeals, so the OMB decision dated March 31, 2016 absolving Capoquian, Jr. because of condonation was unjustified. The OMB insisted that the abandonment became final only on April 12, 2016, when the Supreme Court denied with finality its motion for clarification or motion for partial reconsideration. The Court sustained the OMB: the abandonment of the condonation doctrine became final only on April 12, 2016, and thus the abandonment should be reckoned from that date. Under the circumstances, the OMB decision dated March 31, 2016 absolving Capoquian, Jr. by reason of condonation might have been justified. However, petitioner assailed the application of condonation precisely because Capoquian, Jr. had not invoked it as a defense. The records confirmed that he did not submit or file his counter-affidavit and verified position paper despite being required to do so, which amounted to a waiver of his right to controvert the charge. In Morales vs. Court of Appeals, the OMB itself took the position that condonation was a matter of defense that should be raised and passed upon during the administrative disciplinary proceedings. The Court upheld that position. Condonation is an affirmative fact that must be raised by the respondent in the administrative proceedings to enable the OMB to fully consider and pass upon the matter. Because Capoquian, Jr. did not raise condonation or any other defense, the OMB acted whimsically in absolving him by virtue of condonation. He should be held administratively liable for nepotism, which the OMB found fully established against him, and should be meted the penalty of dismissal from service with all accessory penalties. Yet, because the act complained of happened during his term in 2007–2010 as Municipal Mayor, which term had expired, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be meted on him. Still, despite the principal penalty becoming moot, he should suffer the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations; otherwise, the law becomes a travesty.

• Final and Unappealable OMB Decisions; Certiorari as Remedy — Under Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07, an OMB decision absolving the respondent, or convicting where the penalty is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, is final, executory, and unappealable. Rule 43 appeal does not apply to such absolution. However, decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies declared by law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review via certiorari under Rule 65 upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud, or error of law. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the CA erred in dismissing the certiorari petition as the wrong remedy.
• Abandonment of the Condonation Doctrine — The condonation doctrine, which condoned administrative offenses committed during a prior term upon re-election, was abandoned in Morales vs. Court of Appeals. The abandonment became final only on April 12, 2016, when the Supreme Court denied with finality the OMB’s motion for clarification or motion for reconsideration. The OMB’s Circular No. 17 set the cut-off date and stated that the doctrine would no longer be implemented from April 12, 2016 onwards, except for open and pending administrative cases. The Court applied this in holding that the OMB decision dated March 31, 2016 might have been justified.
• Condonation as an Affirmative Defense — Condonation is a matter of defense that must be specifically invoked by the respondent elective public official in the administrative proceedings. It is an affirmative fact that must be raised to enable the OMB to fully consider and pass upon it; the OMB cannot apply it on its own. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the OMB acted whimsically in absolving Capoquian, Jr. because he did not file his counter-affidavit or verified position paper and did not invoke condonation.
• Nepotism under the Administrative Code and Civil Service Law — Nepotism is prohibited by Section 59 in relation to Section 67 of Presidential Decree No. 807 and Section 49 in relation to Section 55 of Executive Order No. 292. The Court declared Capoquian, Jr. guilty of nepotism for the appointment of his sister Raquel, related within the third degree of consanguinity, to the Board of Directors of the Gamay Water District.

• "A decision absolving a respondent elective public official rendered in an administrative case by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), being final and unappealable pursuant to the rules of the OMB, may still be assailed by petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA)." — This passage states the primary ruling on the availability of certiorari despite the final and unappealable character of an OMB absolution.
• "Condonation, being a matter of defense, must be specifically invoked by the respondent elective public official." — This passage states the core reason the OMB gravely abused discretion in applying condonation without Capoquian, Jr. raising it as a defense.
• "Condonation is an affirmative fact that must be raised by the respondent in the administrative proceedings to enable the OMB to fully consider and pass upon the matter." — This passage defines the procedural character of condonation and explains why the OMB could not apply it sua sponte.
• "Decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies which are declared by law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law." — This passage, quoted from Republic vs. Francisco, supplies the standard for judicial review of final and unappealable OMB decisions.

• Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470 — Held that appeals from OMB decisions in administrative disciplinary cases should be brought to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. The CA relied on it, but the Supreme Court held the reliance misplaced where the OMB absolved the respondent because such decision is final and unappealable.
• Morales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 431 — Abandoned the condonation doctrine; the abandonment became final only on April 12, 2016 when the Supreme Court denied with finality the OMB’s motion for clarification or motion for reconsideration. The Court also cited the OMB’s position therein that condonation is a matter of defense.
• Republic vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 163089, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 377 — Cited for the rule that final and unappealable decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies may be reviewed via certiorari for grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud, or error of law.
• Aguinaldo vs. Santos — Cited by the OMB as the ruling supporting the doctrine of condonation of administrative offenses committed during a prior term; no citation is provided in the text.
• Bunao vs. Social Security System, G.R. No. 159606, December 13, 2005, 477 SCRA 564 — Cited to support the Court’s resolution of the issue instead of remanding the case to the CA, in order to avoid further delay and promote the speedy disposition of cases.

• Section 59, Presidential Decree No. 807 (Administrative Code of 1987), in relation to Section 67 — Prohibits nepotism. The Court declared Capoquian, Jr. guilty of nepotism for the appointment of his sister Raquel to the Gamay Water District Board.
• Section 49, Executive Order No. 292 (Civil Service Law), in relation to Section 55 — Also prohibits nepotism. The Court found Capoquian, Jr. guilty under this provision as well.
• Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07, implementing Section 27, Republic Act No. 6770 — Provides finality and execution of OMB decisions. Where the respondent is absolved, or in conviction where the penalty is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision is final, executory, and unappealable; other cases may be appealed to the CA via Rule 43. Applied to hold that Rule 43 did not apply to the absolution and that certiorari was proper for grave abuse of discretion.
• Rule 43, Rules of Court — Mode of appeal from OMB decisions in administrative disciplinary cases under Fabian vs. Desierto; held inapplicable to the OMB’s final and unappealable absolution of Capoquian, Jr.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Certiorari remedy for grave abuse of discretion; held available to challenge the final and unappealable OMB decision.
• Section 27, Republic Act No. 6770 — Provision of the Ombudsman Act implemented by Administrative Order No. 07; cited as the statutory basis for the OMB’s finality rule.

Gesmundo and Carandang, JJ., concur. Del Castillo and Jardeleza, JJ., were on wellness leave.