OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner,
vs.
CYNTHIA E. CABEROY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 188066 October 22, 2014
PONENTE: Reyes
TOPIC: Oppression (administrative) and Sec. 3(e) and (f) of RA 3019 or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”
FACTS:
Caberoy is the principal of Ramon Avanceña National High School (RANHS) in Arevalo, Iloilo City. She was charged with Oppression and Violation of Section 3(e) and (f) of RA No. 3019 or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” by Tuares for allegedly withholding her salary for the month of June 2002.
The Ombudsman found that Tuares was not paid any amount in June 2002 because of her failure to submit her clearance and Performance Appraisal Sheet for Teachers (PAST), while the other teachers received their salaries for the same month. The Ombudsman concluded that Tuares was “singled out by respondent Caberoy as the only one who did not receive any amount from the school on June 2002 because, as established earlier, the former failed to submit her clearance and PAST.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not Caberoy is guilty of Oppression and violation of Sec. 3(e) and (f) of RA 3019.
HELD:
NO. Caberoy was charged with oppression and violation of RA 3019, however, the Ombudsman, found Caberoy guilty only of Oppression. Thus, the Court need not discussed the violation of RA 3019.
Oppression is an administrative offense21 penalized under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
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 of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority. To be held administratively liable for Oppression or Grave Abuse of Authority, there must be substantial evidence presented proving the complainant’s allegations. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Evidently, from the foregoing disquisitions, respondent Ombudsman contradicted itself when it found and held that petitioner was guilty of “oppression” for not paying the private respondent her June 2002 salary, because as a matter of fact she has been paid albeit 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.
There was delay in the payment of salary because “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 can collect his salary.”
