TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein respondent [Labastida] is found guilty of the charges of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, and is meted out the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of pension benefits and disqualification to hold any other public office. SO ORDERED.
Accordingly, the CSC dismissed the Complaint without prejudice to its re-filing, and ordered the reinstatement of Labastida, with payment of backwages. [17] On May 2, 2016, the Complaint against Labastida was re-filed. [18] On June 10, 2016, the Disciplining Authority issued a Decision [19] holding Labastida liable for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Disciplining Authority opined that Labastida ignored the notices to attend the preliminary investigation and failed to submit her counter-affidavit to the charges. It thus meted the penalty of dismissal from the service against Labastida, with forfeiture of pension benefits and disqualification from holding any other public office, viz .: WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein respondent [Labastida] is found guilty of the charges of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, and is meted out the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of pension benefits and disqualification to hold any other public office. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 242901 - MA. LUISA R. LOREÑO, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
G.R. No. 242901 -
CaseG.R. Nos. 241576 & 241623 - CECILIA Q. REJAS,*, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DIOSDADO N. DITONA, REPRESENTED BY EDWIN N. DITONA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. Nos. 241576