Findings of fact by Ombudsman respected by Court - G.R. No. 184851

G.R. No. 184851

"x x x.

Elementary is the rule that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA. It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made. In reviewing administrative decisions, it is beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties’ evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[22]

We find no reason to depart from the foregoing rule.

The main issue in the administrative complaint for neglect of duty before the Ombudsman is whether Anciado and the other respondents therein committed neglect of duty in completing the road widening project along Dr. Fernandez Avenue. In resolving this issue, the Ombudsman held that:

The crux of the complaint appertains to the alleged neglect by the respondents in completing the project along Dr. Fernandez [Avenue].

However, as the records of the case will show, the purported failure to complete the project in question was totally beyond the control of the respondents, as the complainant has refused to cooperate in the intended re-survey of his property to determine whether the improvements he made have encroached upon a portion of the sidewalk. With this, the respondents can not be expected to pursue the project to its conclusion as they are hampered by the issue of the encroachment. The administrative charge of Neglect of Duty therefore is apparently without basis in fact and in law.

x x x

Needless to state, the matter of refusal of the complainant to cooperate with the respondents has been shown by several pieces of evidence, and the complainant can not be allowed to pass the buck onto the respondents.

But be that as it may, it has also been shown that, even before the filing of the present case on April 18, 2005, the matter of the encroachment by the complainant became the subject of appropriate proceedings before the City Council of Mandaluyong City, Committee on Engineering, as of April 5, 2008. Thus, it is incumbent that the said proceedings be allowed to continue until its conclusion. This is necessary since the issue in the present case, that is, whether the respondents indeed committed neglect of duty, becomes part and parcel of the issues in the said proceedings before the City Council.[23] (citations omitted)

As aptly found by the Ombudsman, which finding was affirmed by the CA, the delay in the completion of the drainage and other works on Dr. Fernandez Avenue, specifically the portion fronting the petitioner’s house, was not attributable to Anciado and the other employees of the Mandaluyong City Engineering Department. Moreover, this matter was clearly and sufficiently addressed by the respondent-employees of Mandaluyong City Engineering Department in their Joint Counter Affidavit[24] before the Ombudsman. Thus:

3.4 However, we could not proceed with the concreting of the pavement in front of the complainant’s property since this will entail removing the temporary drainage pipe underneath that we installed to prevent flooding in the area. This temporary drainage pipe is connected to the newly installed big culvert pipe and the old lined canal is located inside the encroached area of the complainant x x x. Also, this temporary drainage pipe is to be replaced by a big culvert pipe after the issue on complainant’s encroachment shall have been resolved. Thus, if we proceeded with the concreting of said pavement, the City Government would have only incurred additional expenses because later on the same would be demolished to give way to the replacement of said temporary drainage pipe by a big culvert pipe.[25]

All told, we find that the petitioner failed to show any grave abuse of discretion or any reversible error on the part of the Ombudsman in issuing theJuly 6, 2005 and October 5, 2005 Orders, the same having been subsequently affirmed by the CA, which would impel this Court to rule otherwise.

 x x x."