G.R. No. 240301 - ANGELO ANG PALAÑA, VS. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

Ruling

accordingly, should not be considered by the Ombudsman in resolving the case. [15] Too, Palaña denied sending Carrera any handwritten note containing the list of cases that he purportedly influenced in his capacity as NLRC Commissioner. [16] Finally, Palaña surmised that Carrera's complaint was motivated by a desire to exact revenge because Palaña's division had earlier denied a Motion for Attorney's Lien, filed by Carrera, for being out of time. [17] The Ombudsman Ruling On October 30, 2014, the Ombudsman rendered a Decision [18] finding Palaña guilty of grave misconduct and imposing against him the penalty of dismissal from the service and all its accessory penalties. According to the Ombudsman, Palaña neither refuted nor denied that the amount of PHP 100,000.00 was deposited to his account. Also, he never denied that he owned the BDO account, the details of which were confidential and would not have been known to Carrera if Palaña did not give such information in the first place. Thus, there is evidence that he committed grave misconduct. The dispositive portion of the Ombudsman's Decision reads: FOREGOING CONSIDERED , pursuant to Section 43 (A-3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 1101502) dated 18 November 2011, respondent ANGELO ANG PALAÑA is hereby found guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT , and is meted the corresponding penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE including all the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for reemployment in the government service. SO ORDERED . [19] (Emphasis in the original) Palaña's Motion for Reconsideration [20] was denied by the said office through an Order [21] dated September 24, 2015. Aggrieved, Palaña filed a Petition for Review [22] with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 143572. He argued, among others, that Carrera failed to prove his claim of having a cordial relationship with Palaña. Neither did he prove that Palaña asked a loan from him. And, the origin of the cash deposit slip is dubious because the person who made such deposit did not execute any affidavit on the circumstances under which the same was made. In any event, the existence of such cash deposit slip does not even prove that Palaña demanded the amount of PHP 100,000.00 from Carrera. Palaña vehemently denied authorship of the handwritten list of cases and highlighted the fact that it was never proven that he wrote the same. Palaña maintained that Carrera's complaint was impelled by an ill motive because Carrera's services were terminated by a client while said client's case was pending before Palaña's division. Finally, Palaña asserted that the Ombudsman did not even take these matters into consideration, thus, violating his right to due process. [23] The CA Ruling On February 22, 2018, the CA issued a Decision [24] dismissing Palaña's petition. The CA ruled that there was