The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision to reverse the Deputy Ombudsman’s ruling in Primo C. Miro v. Marilyn Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, et al. The Court emphasized that administrative findings must be supported by substantial evidence, and hearsay evidence, lacking personal knowledge or corroboration, does not meet this standard. This ruling safeguards individuals from administrative penalties based on unreliable evidence, ensuring fairness and due process in administrative proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of credible and direct evidence in establishing administrative liability.

Unraveling the LTO Confirmation Certificate Controversy: Was Justice Undermined by Hearsay?

The case originated from administrative and criminal complaints filed against officials of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in Cebu City. The officials, namely Marilyn Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, Catalina Alingasa, and Porferio I. Mendoza, were accused of Grave Misconduct. The charges stemmed from alleged anomalies in the distribution of confirmation certificates, a requirement for motor vehicle registration. The complainants claimed that Alingasa was selling the certificates, which were supposed to be issued free of charge, and remitting the collections to Erederos and Mendoza. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas found Mendoza, Erederos, and Alingasa guilty of grave misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, stating that the Deputy Ombudsman’s finding of grave misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s assessment. The Court emphasized that findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive only when supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. However, this rule is not absolute, and the CA may review the evidence if the administrative agency’s findings are not adequately supported. As the Court noted, findings of fact by administrative or quasi-judicial agencies are not binding upon the courts when they are not adequately supported by substantial evidence.

The Court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review under a Rule 45 petition. A petition for review under Rule 45 is generally limited to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. The Supreme Court will not review facts, as it is not its function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. Furthermore, the errors which the Court may review are those of the CA, and not directly those of the trial court or the quasi-judicial agency. The Supreme Court’s review is limited only to the errors of law committed by the appellate court.

The central issue in this case was whether the CA committed a reversible error in dismissing the administrative charge against the respondents. To resolve this, the Court had to determine whether substantial evidence existed to hold the respondents liable for grave misconduct. The Deputy Ombudsman relied on the affidavits submitted by the complainants and an NBI/Progress report to establish the respondents’ guilt. However, the CA found that the affidavits lacked personal knowledge and were not supported by corroborating evidence, thus constituting hearsay evidence.

The Supreme Court concurred with the CA’s finding that the Deputy Ombudsman’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence on record. The Court emphasized that the affidavits showed that the complainants lacked personal knowledge of the participation of Mendoza and Erederos in the allegedly anomalous act. While the payment to Alingasa might be considered based on personal knowledge, the alleged remittance to Erederos and Mendoza was hearsay. It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from his own perception. A witness may not testify on what he merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is considered hearsay.

Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness.

The Court distinguished between utterances or testimonies that are merely hearsay in character or “non-hearsay,” and those that are considered as legal hearsay. Non-hearsay includes the fact that utterances or statements were made, offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but only as to the fact of the utterance made. Legal hearsay, on the other hand, consists of the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted. The difference lies in the applicability of the rule on exclusion of hearsay evidence. The first class is not covered by the hearsay rule, while the second class is.

Moreover, the theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. However, if an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. Patula v. People of the Philippines

The Court also noted that the affidavits were never identified by the complainants and the allegations were uncorroborated by other evidence. The failure of affiants to appear during the preliminary investigation and identify their sworn statements renders them inadmissible under the hearsay evidence rule. With regard to the NBI/Progress report, the Court found that it constituted double hearsay because the material facts recited were not within the personal knowledge of the officers who conducted the investigation. The report was based on the complainants’ affidavits and did not fall within the scope of the exception to the hearsay rule.

The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule; the facts stated therein were not acquired by the reporting officers through official information, not having been given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so. Africa, et al. v. Caltex (Phil.) Inc., et al.

The Court reiterated that while administrative or quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure, this does not allow them to disregard fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value. In this case, the Deputy Ombudsman failed to establish the elements of grave misconduct. There was no substantial evidence to show that Erederos and Mendoza received collected payments from Alingasa. Their involvement could not be justified under the hearsay affidavits and the NBI/Progress report. With respect to Alingasa, the Court found that the elements of misconduct were wanting and unproven due to the lack of evidence showing that she personally demanded the payment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the administrative charge of grave misconduct against the respondents due to a lack of substantial evidence. Specifically, the court examined whether hearsay evidence was sufficient to support the Deputy Ombudsman’s decision.
What is the definition of substantial evidence in administrative cases?	Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence and must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.
What is hearsay evidence and why is it problematic?	Hearsay evidence is evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others; it is not based on personal knowledge. Hearsay is problematic because the person making the statement is not present to be cross-examined, making the statement unreliable.
What is the difference between non-hearsay and legal hearsay?	Non-hearsay is when a statement is offered to prove that the statement was made, not to prove the truth of its contents. Legal hearsay is when the statement is offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted in the statement.
Why was the NBI/Progress report deemed inadmissible in this case?	The NBI/Progress report was deemed inadmissible because it was based on the complainants’ affidavits and did not contain information derived from the personal knowledge of the investigating officers. Thus, it was considered double hearsay and lacked probative value.
What must be proven to establish grave misconduct?	To establish grave misconduct, it must be proven that there was a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, with elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules. This must be proven by substantial evidence.
Can administrative bodies disregard evidentiary rules?	Administrative bodies are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure but cannot disregard fundamental evidentiary rules. Evidence presented must have a modicum of admissibility and must be substantial.
What was the role of the Court of Appeals in this case?	The Court of Appeals (CA) reviewed the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman and reversed it, finding that the evidence presented did not meet the standard of substantial evidence. The CA determined that the Deputy Ombudsman’s findings were based on inadmissible hearsay.
What is the significance of affiants failing to identify their affidavits?	If affiants fail to identify their sworn statements, the affidavits should not be accepted at face value and should be treated as inadmissible under the hearsay evidence rule. This is particularly important when the charges are serious.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Miro v. Erederos reinforces the importance of substantial evidence in administrative cases and protects individuals from baseless accusations. This ruling clarifies the evidentiary standards required in administrative proceedings, ensuring that decisions are grounded in reliable and credible evidence. Safeguarding against the misuse of hearsay evidence is a fundamental aspect of maintaining fairness and upholding due process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Primo C. Miro v. Marilyn Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, G.R. Nos. 172532 & 172544-45, November 20, 2013