Case Digest: SAMSON B. BEDRUZ and EMMA C. LUNA v . OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, YOLANDA P. LIONGSON 484 SCRA 452 (2006)

SAMSON B. BEDRUZ and EMMA C. LUNA v . OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, YOLANDA P. LIONGSON 484 SCRA 452 (2006)

The omission of the trial court to state the factual and legal bases of its decision is not violative of the constitutional requirement if the same can be inferred from the discussion of the decision. Petitioners Tagaytay City Engineer Samson B. Bedruz and City Administrator Emma C. Luna were held administratively liable for violation of the Constitution, the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in manifesting arrogance, bias, abuse and crystal personal interest in connection with the issuance of a permit to fence a lot. Resolving in the affirmative, the Deputy Ombudsman fined them in an amount equivalent to One (1) Month Salary. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Ombudsman. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Court of Appeals committed grave error and mistake in denying the petition for certiorari.

HELD:

A review of the records of the case shows that the following factual findings of the Ombudsman, upon which its decision of May 8, 1999 was based, and which were cited by the appellate court in arriving at its assailed decision, are supported by the evidence on record. Clearly, the appellate court did not err in finding that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. As for Bedruz and Luna’s complaint that the Ombudsman did not express in a clear manner the law on which its decision was based, thereby violating Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that ―[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, the same fails. Political Law A trial court‘s omission to specify the offense committed, or the specific provision of law violated, ―is not in derogation of the constitutional requirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court as long as the legal basis can be inferred from the discussion in the decision. From the Ombudsman’s decision, it can be gathered that Bedruz and Luna violated Sections 19 of R.A. No. 6770 (THE OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989) in relation to Section 4, paragraphs A(b) & (c) of R.A. No. 6713, as amended (THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES), requiring public officials and employees to ―perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill, ―act with justness and sincerity and ―not to discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged.