GR 159883; (March, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159883 , 168059, 173212 March 31, 2008
DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and FLORA DELA PEÑA, Respondents. (Consolidated Cases)
FACTS
Dr. Pedro F. Gobenciong, Administrative Officer IV of the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC), was implicated in an administrative complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and Misconduct. The complaint, filed by Dr. Flora dela Peña, alleged anomalies in the December 1996 purchase of a hemoanalyzer. Documents showed the unit was delivered and paid for in December 1996, but a replacement was only delivered and installed in April 1997. Gobenciong signed the disbursement voucher attesting to the necessity and lawfulness of the expenditure. The Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas preventively suspended him. After investigation, the Ombudsman found him guilty of Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty, imposing a one-year suspension. Gobenciong challenged both the preventive suspension and the final penalty before the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in (1) ordering the preventive suspension of Gobenciong, and (2) finding him administratively liable and imposing the penalty of one-year suspension.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s actions. On preventive suspension, the Court ruled it was validly imposed. The Ombudsman’s power to preventively suspend is explicitly granted under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act). The requirement is that the evidence of guilt is strong, the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct, and the continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation. The Court found these conditions present, as the alleged falsification of delivery and acceptance documents constituted strong evidence of dishonesty warranting temporary removal.
Regarding the administrative liability, the Court sustained the finding of Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect. Gobenciong, as a signatory to the disbursement voucher, certified the transaction as lawful and necessary despite glaring irregularities—the payment was made for an item not yet physically delivered at the time. His failure to verify the actual existence of the equipment before attesting to the payment constituted gross negligence bordering on dishonesty. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. The penalty of one-year suspension without pay was affirmed as within the Ombudsman’s statutory authority under Section 25 of R.A. No. 6770 and proportionate to the offense. The petitions were denied.