Oppression is an administrative offense. - G.R. No. 188066

See - G.R. No. 188066





"x x x.

Oppression is an administrative offense21 penalized under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,22 which provides:

Section 52. Classification of Offenses.—Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.

A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:

x x x x

14. Oppression.

1st Offense – Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year;

2nd Offense – Dismissal.

x x x x

Oppression is also known as grave abuse of authority, which is a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflict upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury. It is an act ofcruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority.23 To be held administratively liable for Oppression or Grave Abuse of Authority, there must be substantial evidence presented proving the complainant’s allegations.24 Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept asadequate to support a conclusion.25 In this case, the CA correctly overturned the Ombudsman’s findings and conclusions, and explained the reasonsfor exculpating Caberoy, as follows:

Evidently, from the foregoing disquisitions, respondent Ombudsman contradicted itself when it found and held thatpetitioner was guilty of "oppression" for not paying the private respondent her June 2002 salary, because as a matter of fact she has been paidalbeit delayed. Such payment is clearly and indubitably established from the table where it was shown that private respondent received on July 17 and 25, 2002, her June 2002 salary in the amounts of P4,613.80 and P4,612.00, respectively.

x x x x

The above narration of facts do not show that petitioner committed acts constitutive of "oppression." Assuming petitioner’s action is erroneous or overly zealous, this certainly does not merit the most severe penalty of dismissal from government service. Apparently, the petitioner is only protecting herself from any future, adverse consequences if she allows the disbursement of public funds without the appropriate supporting documents. "It is a well-known fact that in the government service an employee must submit his daily time record duly accomplished and approved before one cancollect his salary."

x x x x

Finally, on the contention that the findings and conclusions of the respondent Ombudsman is considered conclusive and deserve respect and finality is true only when the same is based on substantial evidence. As discussed above, the action taken by petitioner in withholding the salaries of private respondent was clearly justified. It was a measure taken by a superior against a subordinate who ignored the basic tenets of law by not submitting the required documents to support payment of her salary and proportional vacation pay for the aforesaid period. x x x.

x x x [I]n this case before us, the records is bereft of substantial evidence to support respondent Ombudsman’s findings and conclusion that petitioner committed oppressive acts against private respondent and violated Sections 3(e) and (f) of RA 3019. On the contrary and as earlier discussed, respondent Ombudsman found and concluded that private respondent was paid her June salaryalbeit late. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid that the act of respondent Ombudsman in concluding that petitioner is guilty as charged despite absence of substantial evidence to support the same is totally unfounded and is therefore, tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of discretion. x x x.26(Citations omitted)

The complaint filed by Tuares against Caberoy charged the latter with "manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence for having ordered the payroll clerk of [RANHS] to cause the exclusion of [her] name in the payroll of June 2002 x x x and [in spite of] the fact that [she has already] rendered full service during said days x x x without any justifiable reason and without due process and without any authority under the law."27 A perusal of Tuares’ allegations shows that her claim pertains to the alleged withholding of her salary for the month of June 2002. Records show, however, that Tuares was actually paid her salary for the month of June 2002. Thus, the vouchers for the payroll period of June 1 to 15, 200228 and June 16 to 30, 200229 showed Tuares’ name on line 11 and her signature acknowledging receipt of her salary for such period. This was, in fact, confirmed in the 2002 salary payrolls submitted by the RANHS Office of the Auditor and summarized by the Ombudsman,30 to wit: x x x.

x x x.

It must be stressed that like other grave offenses classified under the Civil Service laws, bad faith must attend the act complained of. Bad faith connotes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.35 There must be evidence, independent of the fact of such delay, which will lead to the inevitable conclusion that it was for the purpose of singling out Tuares. The Court has consistently upheld the principle that in administrative cases, to be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against the respondent should be competent and must be derived from direct knowledge.36 "Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on."37 Except for the Ombudsman’s deduction based on the dates of issuance of the vouchers and the checks as shown in the payroll, the records of thiscase are bereft of evidence that will support its view that the delay in the release of Tuares’ salary indicated that she was singled out. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the CA, "[t]he certifications issued by Acting Book keeper Hayde S. Momblan will show that it was not only [Tuares] who was not included in the June 2002 payrolls; there were other teachers who were not included because they failed to submit the required year-end clearance. x x x Evidently, [Tuares] was not singled out or discriminated against as insisted by her and respondent Ombudsman."38

x x x."