In a 15-page en banc decision with no dissenting opinion, the 15-member Supreme Court also ordered the reinstatement of Southern Tagalog executive director Antonio Principe with back pay and without loss of seniority.
Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo Pardo, the decision, approved last Jan. 23, reversed the Aug. 25, 2000 ruling of the Court of Appeals and annulled the verdict handed down on Nov. 15, 1999 by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto.
Principe, who formally asked the High Court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision on Jan. 7 last year, lauded the tribunal’s ruling.
In a brief statement, Principe said, "Although I suffered much, the Supreme Court’s decision has finally vindicated me and my family."
In the same decision, the High Court outlined and emphasized in detail the powers, functions and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman, specifically those that concern the dismissal from the service of suspected erring government officials or employees, as provided for under Republic Act 6770, Section 15.
The High Court said the Ombudsman only recommends to a concerned head of office the removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of any erring public officer or employee.
Failure, however, on the part of the concerned head of office to enforce the Ombudsman’s recommendation without just cause, shall be a ground for disciplinary action against him (the head of office).
Principe received a copy of the High Court’s decision last Feb. 7 through his counsel, Nicolas Lapeña of the Lapeña and Associates Law Office.
In exonerating Principe, the Supreme Court noted the error committed by the Ombudsman in charging Principe with gross neglect of duty for his failure to personally monitor the compliance of Philjas, the developer of the Cherry Hills Subdivision in Antipolo City, with the provisions stipulated in its environmental compliance certificate (ECC).
Principe signed the ECC on April 28, 1994, based on the recommendation of his regional technical director for environment, Sixto Tolentino.
"The Ombudsman, without taking into consideration the lawfully mandated duties and functions attached to petitioner’s (Principe’s) position, immediately concluded that as the signing approving authority of the ECC issued to Philjas, it was incumbent upon petitioner to conduct actual monitoring and enforce strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the ECC," the High Court said.
The Supreme Court pointed out that DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 38, Series of 1990, clearly did not mention the responsibility of the regional executive director to monitor ECC projects.
The functions to supervise, coordinate and monitor the implementation of environmental programs, projects and activities in the region are lodged with the regional technical director for environment, the High Court said.