Facts:
Respondent Pedro B. Bo, since
1993, has applied with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (DENR-CENRO) Legazpi City
for the lease of a 10,000 square meter foreshore lot in Palale Beach, Bgy. San
Isidro, Ilawod. Pending his application, he introduced improvements in the area
necessary in putting up and in running a beach resort, secured DENR approval of
his survey plan, obtained a barangay permit to operate his business, and paid
the corresponding yearly occupation fees over the public land. The DENR in the
meantime conducted an appraisal report on the status of the foreshore lot.
But a month before the DENR
released its approval in April 2003 for the bidding of the lease covering the
public land Bo was applying for, his cottage and his coconut trees were
destroyed.
In the police blotter, Bo named
the barangay officials of San Isidro and Bien as the ones who led the
destruction of his properties.
The bidding that was scheduled
for June 2003 for the lease of the foreshore land never took place because the
Sangguniang Barangay of San Isidro, Ilawod opposed Bo’s lease application before
the DENR, reasoning that the land should be used instead for barangay projects
and not to benefit private individuals. The protest was then referred to the
PENRO.
In an ocular inspection conducted
by PENRO on the subject beach property subsequent to the destruction of the
properties of Bo, PENRO found almost all of the barangay officials had their
own cottages erected thereon.
Bo filed a case for abuse of
authority against Bien and the barangay officials of San Isidro. Bo stressed
that all of them connived in doing this injustice to him in order that they may
be able to construct their own
private cottages for their own benefit.
The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
found all respondents therein, including petitioner Bien, administratively
liable for Abuse of Authority and meted out the penalty of 3 months suspension.
CA affirmed. Bien appealed to the
SC contending he is not a barangay official of San Isidro Ilawod; thus, he has
no authority and jurisdiction over the subject property.
Issue:
WON petitioner is liable for
abuse of authority
Held:
Yes. In administrative cases, the
requisite proof is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
In the case at bar, substantial
evidence consisted in the findings of the DENR-PENRO identifying petitioner as one
of the owners of the twenty-two (22) cottages illegally erected on the subject
property covered by a lease application of respondent.
On
May 11, 1993, Applicant-Respondent filed with the DENR-CENRO, Legazpi a
foreshore lease application and designated as F.L.A. No. 050509-01. After six (6)
years of follow-up by Applicant-Respondent on the actions taken on his
application, it was on April 28, 2003 that the Notice to Lease Public Land was
ultimately released for posting in the barangay where the applied area is
located. Instead of having it posted by the Barangay Officials of San Isidro
Ilawod, Malilipot, Albay, they refused its posting and consequently filed
their opposition on June 4, 2003, just five (5) days before the scheduled
bidding of the applied area.
Moreover, the DENR Regional Executive
Director categorically found that the barangay officials, respondents in the
proceedings before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, including herein petitioner
Bien, illegally erected cottages on the subject property:
The
Sangguniang Barangay of San Isidro Ilawod, cannot, in the guise of resolutions
assume the authority and task that pertain solely to the DENR as regards the
administration and management of the subject foreshore land.
The introduction of improvements on the premises without the necessary
permit from the DENR is illegal which we cannot countenance.
More importantly, the evidence
presented by respondent buttressed his positive and consistent claim that
petitioner connived with the barangay officials of San Isidro Ilawod to destroy
the improvements he introduced on the subject property so that these officials
could construct their own cottages thereon.
Respondent has sufficiently
established that petitioner Bien was one of the barangay officials, albeit from
a different barangay, who participated in the destruction of respondent’s
cottage and coconut trees built and planted on the subject property.
Petitioner further makes capital
of the fact that he is not a barangay official of San Isidro Ilawod;
necessarily, for him to be liable for abuse of authority, the exercise of power
should have been done in the discharge of his office.
Petitioner’s status as ABC
President is not disputed. We concur with the CA’s following disquisition:
His
line of reasoning may be convincing had this been the only circumstance. But it
must be taken into consideration that he is the ABC President to whom the
barangay officials show deference to. Also, as correctly held by the Ombudsman,
he is the ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan which is
significantly mentioned to be the legislative body with the power to review
barangay ordinances and with the authority to discipline barangay officials.
The presence of his cottage as well as that of the other barangay officials in
San Isidro Ilawod in Palale Beach showed an apparent connivance among them. It
then follows that his participation as a higher authority had put a
semblance of legality over the removal of complainant’s improvements in
order that they may protect their personal interests over the foreshore lot. In
this sense, there shows his misdemeanor as a public officer, an abuse of
his authority. (Bien vs Bo, G.R. No. 179333, August 3, 2010)
0
Comments
