View full case

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MANUEL P. VALENCIA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review that challenges the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, which found the respondent, Manuel P. Valencia, Jr., guilty of dishonesty and placed him under preventive suspension. It is alleged that Valencia undervalued his assets in his sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and maintained two US dollar time deposit accounts with a significant amount of money in the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC). The complainant also claimed that Valencia's declared house and lot were grossly undervalued, considering it was built on five contiguous lots. Additionally, it was alleged that Valencia maintained a lavish lifestyle based on his credit card billings. Valencia filed a motion to set aside the orders, arguing that the case was not yet ripe for investigation, that the complaint was improperly sworn before an unauthorized person, and that similar charges against him were previously dismissed. The Ombudsman denied Valencia's motion and ordered him to submit his counter-affidavit and supporting documents. Valencia defended himself by explaining the history of his family's business ventures and the acquisition of their properties.

The case involves Manuel P. Valencia, a government official who was charged with dishonesty and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It was alleged that Valencia maintained a lavish lifestyle and possessed unexplained wealth that was disproportionate to his lawful income.

Valencia argued that his properties were accurately valued in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SALNs), and that his house was the result of regular maintenance and minor renovations. He also denied maintaining two US dollar time deposits, claiming that the agreements related to these deposits did not bear his signature.

The Ombudsman placed Valencia under preventive suspension for six months without pay based on the complaint. Valencia requested the lifting of the suspension but was denied. He then waived his right to a formal investigation and submitted the case for decision.

The Ombudsman issued subpoenas to the BPI Card Customer Service Department and FEBTC/BPI for the production of documents related to Valencia's Mastercard transactions and alleged time deposits. BPI later informed the Ombudsman that it could not produce documents regarding bank deposits without the written permission of the depositor. Despite this, the Ombudsman found that Valencia must have derived income from unlawful sources and dismissed him from service.

Valencia sought reconsideration of the Ombudsman's decision, but it was denied. However, the decision of the Ombudsman was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The CA held that the charge of unexplained wealth was separate from the offense of dishonesty and that there was insufficient evidence to hold Valencia administratively liable.

The case involves an appeal filed by petitioner before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman which found probable cause for his indictment for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Office of the Ombudsman based its findings on the affidavits of witnesses, the mastercard application, photocopies of letters of agreement between petitioner and Far East Bank and Trust Company, and unauthenticated copies of petitioner's alleged BPI Mastercard transactions. Petitioner argues that the evidence presented against him amounted to mere speculations and should not be relied upon to find probable cause for his indictment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Valencia is administratively liable for dishonesty.

RULING:

The Court ruled that Valencia is not administratively liable for dishonesty as there is no substantial evidence to support the allegations. The due execution and genuineness of the photocopied documents were not verified and confirmed, thus rendering them inadmissible and insufficient to hold Valencia liable for dishonesty.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Substantial Evidence Rule: The verdict in administrative cases must be supported by substantial evidence, which is relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  2. Due Execution and Genuineness of Evidence: Photocopied private documents must be verified for due execution and genuineness to be admissible in evidence.

  3. Legal Definition of Dishonesty: Intentional false statement of material fact, practice or attempt to deceive or defraud, indicating a lack of integrity required for public officers.

  4. Unexplained Wealth: When an employee's assets are disproportionate to their income and cannot be properly accounted for, it leads to a liability for dishonesty.

  5. Importance of SALN: The Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) is essential for transparency and accountability, helping to prevent unexplained wealth and dishonesty in public service.

  6. Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: The actual recital of facts in the accusation determines the real nature of the charge, ensuring that charges and convictions are aligned with due process rights.