GovCon Syllabus Part III

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III III.

ARTICL ART ICLE E XI, 1987 1987 CONS CONSITU ITUTIO TION N (A PUBL PUBLIC IC OFFIC OFFICER ER IS A PUBL PUBLIC IC TRUST TRUST)) ARTICLE XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to te people, ser!e tem "it utmost responsibility, inte#rity, loyalty, and efficiency$ act "it patriotism and %ustice, and lead modest li!es. Section &. Te President, te 'ice(President, te )embers of te Supreme Court, te )embers of  te t e Co Cons nsti titu tuti tion onal al Co Commi mmiss ssion ions, s, an and d t te e *m *mbu buds dsma man n ma may y be re remo! mo!ed ed fr from om of offi fice ce on impeacment for, and con!iction of, culpable !iolation of te Constitution, treason, bribery, #raft and corruption, oter i# crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All oter public officers and employees may be remo!ed from office as pro!ided by la", but not by impeacment. Section +. 1- Te ouse of Representati!es sall a!e te e/clusi!e po"er to initiate all cases of  impeacment. &- A !er &!erif ified ied compla complain intt fo forr im impe peac acm men entt ma may y be fi file led d by an any y )e )emb mber er of t te e o ous use e of  Representati!es or by any citi0en upon a resolution or endorsement by any )ember tereof, "ic sall be included in te *rder of usiness "itin ten session days, and referred to te proper Committee Committee "iti "itin n tree session days terea tereafter. fter. Te Commit Committee, tee, after earin earin#, #, and by a ma%ority !ote of all its )embers, sall submit its report to te ouse "itin si/ty session days from suc referral, to#eter "it te correspondin# resolution. Te resolution sall be calendared for consideration by te ouse "itin ten session days from receipt tereof. +- A !ote of at least one(tird of all te )embers of te ouse sall be necessary eiter to affirm a fa!orable resolution "it te Articles of Impeacment of te Committee, or o!erride its contrary  resolution. Te !ote of eac )ember sall be recorded. 2- In case te !erified complaint or resolution of impeacment is filed by at least one(tird of all te )embers of te ouse, te same sall constitute te Articles of Impeacment, and trial by  te Senate sall fort"it proceed. 3- 4o impeacment proceedin#s sall be initiated a#ainst te same official more tan once "itin a period of one year. 5- Te Senate sall a!e te sole po"er to try and decide all cases of impeacment. 6en sittin# for tat pur purpos pose, e, te Senators Senators sa sall ll be on oat oat  or aff affirma irmatio tion. n. 6e 6en n te President President of te Pilippines is on trial, te Cief 7ustice of te Supreme Court sall preside, but sall not !ote. 4o person sall be con!icted "itout te concurrence of t"o(tirds of all te )embers of te Senate. 8- 7ud#ment in cases of impeacment sall not e/tend furter tan remo!al from office and dis9ualification to old any office under te Republic of te Pilippines, but te party con!icted sall ne!erteless be liable and sub%ect to prosecution, trial, and punisment, accordin# to la". :- Te Con#ress sall promul#ate its rules on impeacment to effecti!ely carry out te purpose of tis section. Section 2. Te present anti(#raft Section anti(#raft court ;no"n as te Sandi#anbayan Sandi#anbayan sall continue to functi function on and e/ercise its %urisdiction as no" or ereafter may be pro!ided by la". Section 3. Tere is ereby created te independent *ffice of te *mbudsman, composed of te *mbudsman *mbud sman to be ;no"n as Tanod Tanodbayan bayan,, one o!erall - Re9uest issue slips$ 11- Suppliers official receipts$ 1&- >&, e recei!ed cec;s in te amounts of ₱ &=3,>>>.>>, ₱ &28,>>>.>>, ₱ 1&&,>>>.>>, ₱ 1>:,>>>.>> and ₱ 1>3,>>>.>>.= To !erify "eter it "as possible for im to recei!e suc amounts in one day, a daily analysis of te sales of accountable forms "it te correspondin# documentary stamps "as made.1> In te Audit *bser!ation )emorandum A*) 4o. &>>&(>>:- 11 dated 4o!ember &5, &>>&, State Auditor Prudencia S. autista autista- reported tat petitioner as an unremitted collection from sales of accountable forms "it money !alue and stamps in te amount of ₱ &>,11:,+33.>> for te period 7anuary &>>& to *ctober &>>&.1& pon furter in!esti#ation by State Auditor )arco, it "as disco!ered tat based on te analysis of te montly sales of accountable forms and stamps, petitioner failed to remit te total amount of ₱  3+,&12,&3:.>>1+ from 7anuary &>>> to *ctober &>>&.12 *n 7anuary 5, &>>+, Customs Commissioner Antonio ). ernardo re9uested respondent 4ational ureau of In!esti#ation(4ational Capital Re#ion 4I(4CR- to conduct an in!esti#ation on te reported misappropriation of public funds committed by petitioner.13 *n 7anuary :, &>>+, te resident auditors of 4AIA Customs ouse, namely@ )arco, autista, and ilomena Tolorio, e/ecuted separate GSinumpaan# SalaysayG15 at te 4I. Tey stated under oat tat based on te Analysis of te )ontly Sales of Accountable orms and Stamps for te years &>>>18 and &>>1,1: and te period 7anuary 1, &>>& to *ctober +1, &>>&, 1= and te Summary of  Analysis of Sale of Stamps and Accountable orms for te period 7anuary &>>> to *ctober &>>&, &> petitioner failed to remit te total amount of ₱ 3+,&12,&3:.>>.&1  Tereafter, on 7anuary 1>, &>>+, an Information for !iolation of Republic Act RA- 4o. 8>:> Plunder"as filed a#ainst petitioner.&& Te case "as raffled to ranc 11= of te Re#ional Trial Court RTC- of  Pasay City and doc;eted as Crim inal Case 4o. >+(>>2+.&+ *n ebruary :, &>>+, Customs +, directed petitioner to file is counter(affida!it. *n )ay 1=, &>>+, petitioner filed is Counter(Affida!it &5 cate#orically denyin# te accusation urled a#ainst im. e claimed tat tere "as no under remittance on is part because te sale of *C forms does not automatically result in te sale of documentary stamps from te >&(>3+ dated Au#ust &5, &>>+. &:

Pa#e &> of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Ruling of the Ombudsman  *n )ay +, &>>3, te *mbudsman rendered a Pertinent portions of te >& to *ctober +>, &>>& amountin# to ₱  &>,11:,+33.>> "ic "as initially communicated to >&(>>: dated 4o!ember &5, &>>&. Tis leads to a furter in!esti#ation resultin# to te analysis of )ontly Sales of  Accountable orms and Stamps prepared by te C*A State Auditors co!erin# te period  7anuary 1, &>>> to *ctober +>, &>>&, "ic so"ed tat te total amount of unremitted collections for te sale of accountable forms "it money !alue and customs documentary  and IR stamps amounted to ₱ 3+,53:,+81.>>.  Te follo"in# table so"s a comparison of collections and remittances per report of )r. Ernesto a%ardo and per audit by te team for te period 7anuary &>>> to *ctober +>, &>>&. As per audit report, te total amount of collections is ₱ 22>,5&+,111.>>, "ereas respondents report disclosed total collections in te amount of ₱ +:8,=1+,+:1.>>.  / / / /  Te abo!e(cited comparison focused on te e/amination and !erification of documents co!erin# collections and remittances of a%ardo. Te documents composed of li9uidated and unli9uidated entries comin# from te follo"in# offices@ 1- Li.%i(ation an( Biing /i$ision 0 which has th# f%nction of $#rif'ing) r#$i#wing an( ch#cing co!p%tation of for!a #ntri#s2 3- Cashi#rs 0 who s%&!it to COA a infor!a #ntri#s aft#r th#' ha$# co#ct#(  c%sto!s (%ti#s) ta4#s an( oth#r charg#s for th# i!port#( goo(2 an( aso th#  Bon(s /i$ision an( Offic# of th# /#p%t' Co#ctor for Op#rations which aso  ha$# c%sto(' of $ario%s for!s witho%t !on#' $a%# s%ch as &on(s) c#aranc#s) #tc") wh#r# C%sto!s /oc%!#ntar' Sta!ps ,C/S- ar# r#.%ir#( &' r#g%ations to  &# affi4#(" Th# a%(it i#wis# conc#ntrat#( on Confir!ation with fro! Bro#rs  r#gar(ing th# sa# of C/S" In fact, confirmation letters "ere sent to &1& bro;ers "o purcased *C Accountable orms from 4AIA for te period 7anuary &>>> to *ctober &>>&. Selection "as based on te !olume of purcases made by te bro;ers. Te selected bro;ers ad te i#est number of purcases of *C Accountable orms "it money !alue re9uirin# payment of  C>. Terefore, te total sum "ic respondent failed to remit amounted to ₱ 3+,&12,&3:.>>.>>, "ic "as later on corrected in te C*A final audit report to ₱ 3+,53:,+81.>> or an increase of ₱ 222,11+.>>. A re!ie" of te abo!e analysis initiated by C*A State Auditors ilomena ascon Tolorio and Prudencia S. autista, confirmed te fore#oin# findin#s.  Te in!esti#atin# panel is, terefore, of te !ie" tat respondent ER4EST* A. A7AR3, is ereby AFFIRME' "it finality.  Te onorable ALEXAN'ER M. AREVALO, Commissioner, ureau of Customs, is ereby  directed to implement te + )ay &>>3, "it te re9uest to promptly  submit to tis *ffice, tru te Preliminary In!esti#ation and Administrati!e Ad%udication ureau D C, 2t loor, *mbudsman ld#., A#am Road, ?o!ernment Center, 4ort  Trian#le, > to *ctober +>, &>>& "ere all remitted and accounted for by petitioner. 2. Te testimony of 4ancy )arco on te safe#uards used to protect te inte#rity or reliability of te metered macine. 3. 4ancy )arco is not an e/pert "en se testified. 5. Te repeated admissions of 4ancy )arco tat er GAuditG sales can not be possible for te load on te macine per mont "as less tan er montly GauditG sale. C. 6eter / / / te CA committed #ra!e abuse of discretion in failin# to consider and appreciate te findin#s of te trial court in te related criminal case tat te e!idence of  #uilt a#ainst petitioner "as "antin# and tat tere "as no direct e!idence to pro!e tat petitioner mal!ersed andFor amassed #o!ernment funds. >3, "ic reads@  Te findin#s of discrepancies as contained in te audit obser!ation memorandum prepared by State Auditor 4ancy )arco "as already !erified and !alidated per C*A final audit report "ic "as indubitably considered in te draftin# of te 9uestioned  To dispro!e te correctness of te Gaudit sales,G petitioner arps on te fact tat te amount loaded

Pa#e &3 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III on te macine per mont "as less tan te montly Gaudit salesG of State Auditor )arco. e insists tat tis pro!es tat tere "as no under remittance on is part. 6e do not a#ree. Te mere fact tat te load in te macine is less tan te Gaudit saleG does not pro!e is innocence. Rater, it only  means tat eiter petitioner sold te accountable forms "itout te correspondin# documentary  stamp, "ic is a clear !iolation of C)* 4o. 1=(88, or tat e used anoter macine, not autori0ed by is office, as teori0ed by State Auditor )arco. 51  To us, te discrepancy bet"een te Gaudit salesG and te actual amount remitted by petitioner is sufficient e!idence of disonesty and #ra!e misconduct "arrantin# is dismissal from public ser!ice. 6e need not belabor te point tat unli;e in a criminal case "ere proof beyond reasonable doubt is re9uired, administrati!e proceedin#s only re9uire substantial e!idence or Gsuc rele!ant e!idence as a reasonable mind may accept as ade9uate to support a conclusion.G 5& 4eiter do "e find any #ra!e abuse of discretion on te part of te CA in not considerin# te findin# of te RTC Gtat te e!idence of #uilt of petitioner is not stron#.G 5+ To be#in "it, te *rder52 dated  7anuary 5, &>>2, #rantin# petitioners application for bail, "as not attaced to te Petitio n 53 e filed "it te CA, nor "as it submitted as e!idence before te *mbudsman. 55 It is li;e"ise si#nificant to mention tat te said *rder merely resol!ed petitioners entitlement to bail. )ore important, te *mbudsman and te CA are not bound by te RTCs findin# because as a rule, administrati!e cases are independent from criminal proceedin#s.58 In fact, te dismissal of one case does not necessarily  merit te dismissal of te oter.5: All told, "e find tat tere is substantial e!idence to so" tat petitioner failed to remit te amount of ₱ 3+,53:,+81.>> from te sale of accountable forms "it money !alue and documentary stamps for te period 7anuary &>>> up to *ctober &>>&. Th# O!&%(s!an has th# pow#r to  (is!iss #rring p%&ic officias or  #!po'##s" As a last ditc effort to sa!e imself, petitioner no" puts in issue te po"er of te *mbudsman to order is dismissal from ser!ice. Petitioner contends tat te *mbudsman in dismissin# im from ser!ice disre#arded Section 1+, subpara#rap +, Article XI of te Constitution as "ell as Section 13+of RA 4o. 588>.5= "ic only !ests in te *mbudsman te po"er to recommend te remo!al of a public official or employee. Petitioners contention as no le# to stand on. It is already "ell(settled tat Gte po"er of te *mbudsman to determine and impose administrati!e liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory.G8> As "e a!e e/plained in Atty. Ledesma !. Court of Appeals,81 te fact Gtat te refusal, "itout %ust cause, of any officer to comply  "it te order of te *mbudsman to penali0e an errin# officer or employee is a #round for disciplinary action under Section 13+- of RA 4o. 588>$ is a stron# indication tat te *mbudsmans recommendation is not merely ad!isory in nature but is actually mandatory "itin te bounds of  la".G8&

?EREFORE, te petition is ereby 'ENIE'. te >5 and te Resolution dated 7une &:, &>>5 of te Court of Appeals in CA(?.R. SP 4o. =1>&1 are ereby AFFIRME'. S* *R

52

Repair, Pil. )ail



25

Re#istration ee$ Pil. )ail



&3.3

*ffice Rental, S. a#uisan

Au#. 1=:1

52>

4o!. 1=:1

25:.3

Repair, Pil. )ail

7an. 1=:&

+&

)ail Carria#e, Postmaster

7an. 1=:&

5

Sept. 1=:&

&&:.22

)ail Carria#e, Postmaster

eb. 1=:&

1&.3

?asoline, Pil. )ail

eb. 1=:&

&+:.=3

are, Pedro .2> "ic se ad failed to record in er cas boo;, and since ui%ada neiter considered te cas items in te aforesaid amount of P5,181.&+ as a!in# been !alidly disbursed, e reported tat petitioner ad incurred a total Gcas sorta#eG of P12,1=1.5+. e ten referred te matter to te Re#ional  and Gto li9uidate an account,G can mean to ascertain te balance due, to "om it is due, and to "om it is payable, &1 ence, an account tat as been Gli9uidatedG can also mean tat te item as been made certain as to "at, and o" muc, is deemed to be o"in#. && It "ould indeed be folly and too restricti!e a usa#e to construe te "ord Gli9uidatedG as bein# solely  te Greceipt of cec;s by petitioner or encasment of te cec; by petitioner,G and to tereby  conclude tat se sould be eld to a!e mal!ersed te amount of P3,5>>.:2 merely for er GfailureG to transfer te sum eiter to er successor te day se "as promoted or to te auditor on te day te audit "as made. &+ Te defense e!idence, te autenticity and #enuineness of "ic "ere not contro!erted by te prosecution, "ould so" tat te Re#ional *ffice issued tirty cec;s bearin# dates bet"een >8 4o!ember 1=:& and &1 )arc 1=:2. Te cec;s "ere not issued fortri#tly. Te probability tat ineptitude on te part of te personnel ta;in# car#e of te issuance of te cec;s, not to mention te commonly(e/perienced lon# trail of red tape in #o!ernment transactions, ad en#endered delay in suc issuance sould not be discounted. Accordin# to petitioner, a#ain not contested by te prosecution, after substantiatin# er claim tat te Gsorta#eG represented le#itimate operational e/penses, se follo"ed up te appro!al of te cas items "it te Re#ional *ffice. pon finally recei!in# te tirty(tree cec;s, "it er as payee, se encased tem and immediately turned te cas o!er to te ureau of Posts of Tanda#. &2 ort"it, on >1 7uly 1=:+, petitioner paid te amount of P3,53&.13 to te ureau of Posts under *.R. 4o. 552355: &3 "ic amount, incidentally, is e!en sli#tly o!er te total amount of P3,5>>.:2 found by te Sandi#anbayan.  Te payment by postal employees "o made G!alesG from petitioner "ere deposited by er to te account of te ureau of Posts of Tanda# under *.R. 4o. 552358>, dated >5 7uly 1=:+, in te amount of P2,133.12. Petitioner e/plained tat tis sum "as P&=2.5= less tan te total amount of  te salaries due te employees because te employees did not al"ays ma;e G!alesG for te full amount of teir salaries. &5 6ile tis Court "ould consider te practice of disbursin# public funds under te G!aleG system to be unmeritorious "ere te disbursin# officer ad not been autori0ed to #rant G!alesG or to ma;e ad!ances of salaries, &8 in tis case, o"e!er, te conditions appended to te autority #ranted by te Postmaster ?eneral to ad!ance salaries of employees under Circular 4o. :&(&1 sanctioned te practice.  Te conclusion made by te Sandi#anbayan tat te amounts paid by petitioner to te ureau of  Pa#e +& of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Posts under *.R. 4o. 552355: and 4o. 552358> "ere GrestitutionsG "ould seem to be less tan accurate. Te amounts "ere GreplenismentsG &: comin# from te Re#ional *ffice in cec;s issued out in petitioners name "ic se paid, after encasment, to te ureau of Posts. Te sum of  P=,:>8.&= tat "as replenised, "en added to te ten items certified to be accounts payable and to t"o items replenised by cec;s issued after >2 )arc 1=:+, appro!ed as operational e/penses in te amount of P2,+88.52, totalled P12,&:2.2+, or e!en P=&.:> more tan te supposed Gsorta#eG of  P12,151.5+. 6ile it "as not made clear "ic of te office e/penses ad been ta;en from te proceeds of te posta#e stamp sales, te fact still remained, ne!erteless, tat te Re#ional *ffice cleared petitioner of suc accountabilities, indicatin# at te !ery least tat se did not spend te amount for personal use. Te Court ad eretofore reco#ni0ed situations tat could necessitate te use by accountable public officials of cas on and for pertinent e/penditures in te conduct of official business. In B%ga'ong $s" P#op# , &= te Court ac9uitted an accused #o!ernment pysician of mal!ersation for a sorta#e in cas account upon audit e/amination because te collections in te ospital "ere found to a!e been used as its re!ol!in# fund for suc official e/penditures. In Pa!a 9i $s" P#op# , +> "ere donated lo#s "ere disposed of to construct municipal pro%ects, te Court eld tat if funds or property entrusted to a public officer "ere !alidly used for public purposes e sould not be eld liable for mal!ersation.  Te Sandi#anbayan noticeably depended on te recommendations of C*A in con!ictin# appellant.  Te Court could not elp but obser!e tat upon bein# informed tat te ureau of Posts ad reimbursed te entire amount alle#ed to be er sorta#e, Auditor ui%ada opined tat is audit report ad to be altered to reflect tat fact. Auditor ui%adas ac9uiescence to te alteration of is report to conform to te ad!ice "ould someo" manifest tat te audit "as not conducted "it sufficient torou#ness. In Tinga $s" P#op# , +1 te Court said@ At tis %uncture, it may not be amiss to state tat considerin# te #ra!ity of te offense of )al!ersation of Public unds, %ust as #o!ernment treasurers are eld to strict accountability as re#ards funds entrusted to tem in a fiduciary capacity, so also sould e/aminin# C*A auditors act "it #reater care and caution in te audit of te accounts of suc accountable officers to a!oid te perpetration of any in%ustice. Accounts sould be e/amined carefully and torou#ly to te last detail, "it absolute certainty in strict compliance "it te )anual of Instructions. Special note sould be ta;en of te fact tat disallo"ances for lac; of pre(audit are not necessarily  tantamount to mal!ersation in la". Imperati!e it is li;e"ise tat sufficient time be #i!en e/amined officers to reconstruct teir accounts and refute te car#e tat tey  ad put #o!ernment funds to teir personal uses. Access to records must be afforded tem "itin a reasonable time after audit "en disbursements are still fres in teir minds and not years after "en rele!ant official records may no lon#er be a!ailable and te passa#e of time as blurred uman memory.+& In >+ and te resolution& dated 7anuary 13, &>>2 of te Court of Appeals + in CA(?.R. SP 4o. 3:&52 "ic affirmed "it modification public respondents 1- 7oint Resolution dated 7anuary &&, 1===, "ic ordered, amon# oter tin#s, petitioners suspension for one 1- year for conduct pre%udicial to te ser!ice$ and &- *rder dated ebruary :, &>>>, as reiterated in a )emorandum dated )arc 18, &>>>, "ic denied petitioners motion for reconsideration but reduced is suspension to nine =monts "itout pay. Te Court of Appeals modified te abo!e issuances by furter reducin# petitioners suspension from nine =- monts to si/ 5- monts and one 1- day "itout pay. 2 Petitioner Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma is te Cairman of te irst >+: administrati!e aspect-, for nine =- counts of  , ?raft *fficer Reyes recommended te denial of te motion for reconsideration "ic "as appro!ed by respondent *mbudsman on )arc &2, &>>> but reduced te period of suspension from one 1- year to nine =- monts "itout pay. *n April 1+, &>>>, petitioner filed a petition for re!ie" "it te Court of Appeals, "ic included a prayer for te issuance of a "rit of preliminary proibitory mandatory in%unction andFor temporary  restrainin# order to en%oin public respondents from implementin# te order of suspension. Te Court of Appeals issued te TR* on April 1=, &>>>. In its >+, te Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners suspension but reduced te period from nine =- monts to si/ 5- monts and one 1- day "itout pay. 1& 6it te denial of is motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed te instant petition for re!ie" on te follo"in# #rounds@ I. I4 PR*)L?ATI4? ITS ASSAILE< *)(>(>1(>58=-.  Te complaint alle#ed, amon# oter tin#s, tat@ 1. rom 1==3 up to &>>>, te Electrical , Electrical Inspector 'illasenor inspected te electrical systems of  )anor otel and submitted to im te 4otice of Annual Inspection dated ebruary 13, &>>1 "it 4o. >1(>>:=5, "it a Certification by Ed#ardo ). Pa#e 2> of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III )erida, a licensed electrical contractor, to te effect tat te electrical installations and e9uipments at te otel "ere inspected and tested by te latter and found to be in safe condition. e )ontallana- si#ned and appro!ed te same based on te facts set fort terein, relyin# in #ood fait on te correctness of te entries made by is inspectors. +. Te re9uested official records "ic could pro!e tat mandatory annual electrical inspection "ere conducted at te )anor otel from 1==3 to &>>> cannot be produced as tese could a!e been lost due to fre9uent transfers of office and lac; of stora#e rooms or "ere amon# tose dama#ed by te fire tat ra0ed te ue0on City all main buildin# sometime in Au#ust 1==:. 2. Assumin# tere "as misrepresentation as to te true electrical status of te )anor otel on te latest inspection conducted si/ 5- monts prior to te sub%ect fire incident, as a superior officer, e cannot be eld liable for te acts of is subordinates as e only based is appro!al on teir reports.H5

*n 7une 18, &>>+, te In!esti#atin# Panel of te *) rendered a >2. A##rie!ed, petitioner filed a )otion for Reconsideration.H1> *n )arc &, &>>5, te *ffice of te Special Prosecutor issued a )emorandumH11 denyin# te motion. Te said )emorandum "as appro!ed by ten *mbudsman )a. )erceditas 4a!arro(?utierre0 on )arc 1+, &>>5,H1& te Pa#e 21 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III dispositi!e portion of "ic reads@ 6ERE*RE, in !ie" of te fore#oin#, tere a!in# been no co#ent and con!incin# ar#uments and pieces of e!idence to set aside te assailed )emorandum, te undersi#ned prosecution officers respectfully recommend tat te motions for reconsideration filed by erein accused be >2 be AIR)E< in toto .H1+

4ot satisfied, petitioner sou#t recourse before te CA, doc;eted as CA(?.R. SP 4o. =+:=:. *n )ay  &:, &>>8, te CA rendered a >1, after it "as already  issued. Suc incident is not an isolated case as tere "ere oter instances tat te annual notice did not pass trou# im for reasons ;no"n only to is collea#ues. e tried to con!ey suc practice to is superior referrin# to petitioner- but no positi!e action "as ta;en tereon. :. Te Electrical Report 4o. >:(&=(>1 of En#r. >1 does not cate#orically pro!e tat te inspection "as conducted considerin# tat it contains misrepresentations as to te true electrical status of )anor otel. 1>. Petitioner made conflictin# statements about is and in te appro!al and si#nin# of  suc 4otice. In tis petition and in te Consolidated )emorandum e stated tat e si#ned and appro!ed te 4otice of Annual Inspection "ile in is )otion for Reconsideration e stated tat e did not si#n nor initial said 4otice, but it "as En#r. Rodel A. )esa "o did so. Tis only so"s tat petitioner "as not sure as to is stand as to "eter an inspection "as conducted. 11. 6ile denyin# is participation in te 4otice of Annual Inspection dated ebruary 13, &>>1, petitioner ne!erteless used tis 4otice as is only proof tat inspection "ere re#ularly conducted.H&2

 Te purpose of administrati!e proceedin#s is mainly to protect te public ser!ice, based on te time( onored principle tat a public office is a public trust.H&3 rom te fore#oin#, petitioners ne#li#ence in te performance of is duties as a public ser!ant "as "ell establised. In administrati!e proceedin#s, te 9uantum of proof necessary for a findin# of #uilt is substantial e!idence, i"#", tat amount of rele!ant e!idence tat a reasonable mind mi#t accept as ade9uate to support a conclusion.H&5 Suffice it to state tat in tis %urisdiction te "ell(settled rule is tat te findin#s of fact of  administrati!e bodies, if based on substantial e!idence, are controllin# on te re!ie"in# autority. It is settled tat it is not for te appellate court to substitute its o"n %ud#ment for tat of te administrati!e a#ency on te sufficiency of te e!idence and te credibility of te "itnesses. Administrati!e decisions on matters "itin teir %urisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of #ra!e abuse of discretion, fraud or error of la".H&8 Conse9uently, te CA correctly affirmed te conclusion of te *ffice of te *mbudsman. )oreo!er, te issue of "eter petitioners #uilt on te administrati!e car#es a#ainst im is supported by substantial e!idence is factual in nature, te determination of "ic is beyond te ambit of tis Court. Te tas; of tis Court in an appeal by petition for re!ie" on certiorari as a  %urisdictional matter is limited to re!ie"in# errors of la" tat mi#t a!e been committed by te CA. H&: Te Supreme Court cannot be tas;ed to #o o!er te proofs presented by te petitioner in te proceedin#s belo" and analy0e, assess and "ei# tem to ascertain if te court a .%o   and te appellate court "ere correct in teir appreciation of te e!idence.H&= Tis Court as time and a#ain Pa#e 23 of 25