GR 154083; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154083 ; February 27, 2013
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. SAMSON DE LEON, Respondent.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman investigated reports of illegal quarrying in Baras, Rizal. The investigation confirmed the illegal activity, which continued even after the initial inspection. Respondent Samson De Leon, the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) and concurrent Chairman of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) of Rizal, was subsequently included in the administrative complaint. The Ombudsman found De Leon guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty for failing to act upon the reported violation within his area of responsibility and imposed a penalty of one-year suspension without pay.
De Leon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the Ombudsman’s ruling, finding that De Leon’s inaction constituted only Simple Neglect of Duty. Consequently, the CA reduced the penalty to a three-month suspension without pay. Since De Leon had already served this reduced period, the CA ordered his reinstatement. The Office of the Ombudsman filed the present petition, arguing that the CA erred in downgrading the offense and the corresponding penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the factual findings and penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman, which found respondent guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the Ombudsman’s decision. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review over administrative decisions of the Ombudsman. Factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this principle, as the Ombudsman’s finding of gross neglect was amply supported by the record.
The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the respondent’s duties and the gravity of his inaction. As the PENRO and PMRB Chairman, De Leon was the primary government official tasked with enforcing mining and environmental laws in the province. His failure to investigate or act upon a confirmed report of rampant illegal quarrying within his jurisdiction was not a mere lapse but a conscious indifference to a duty mandated by law. This constituted Gross Neglect of Duty, defined as a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty. The prescribed penalty for a first offense of Gross Neglect of Duty under the Uniform Rules is suspension for six months and one day to one year. The Ombudsman’s imposition of a one-year suspension was therefore within the bounds of its disciplinary authority and the applicable rules. The CA’s substitution of its own judgment on the degree of negligence and the appropriate penalty was an error.