G.R. No. 175115 - LILY O. ORBASE, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ADORACION MENDOZA-BOLOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully recommended that the AAB Decision dated September 6, 1999 be disapproved and that respondent is found guilty of Dishonesty and dismissed from service with all the accessory penalties. [11] Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Appeal [12] and Supplemental Appeal and/or Reconsideration. [13] She also filed a Motion for Re-Assignment and to Conduct Preliminary Conference and Hearing, [14] but they were denied in the Memorandum [15] dated January 5, 2000. Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 57158, arguing that: the honorable office of the ombudsman, through its office of the Chief legal counsel, erred in holding that it had the requisite jurisdiction to act on the complaint against the petitioner. It is most respectfully submitted that there was clear error in not holding that petitioner was not within the scope of applicability of ra 6770. the honorable office of the ombudsman erred in holding that substantial evidence exists to support the findings of dishonesty and ignoring other evidence on record negating such evidence. the honorable office of the ombudsman erred in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration and IN failing to give due course to petitioner's request for re-assignment and the conduct of a preliminary conference and formal investigation. the honorable office of the ombudsman erred in imposing the penalty of dismissal for the alleged offense of dishonesty. It is respectfully submitted that such penalty was too harsh and disproportionate as to be arbitrary and oppressive. [16] On August 11, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision [17] denying the petition, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED . The assailed Memoranda dated October 21, 1999 and January 5, 2000 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-99-0517 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . In denying the petition, the CA ratiocinated that the Office of the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over administrative complaints involving public officers and employees; thus, petitioner's contention that the Office of the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over the subject complaint cannot be upheld. Also, the CA opined that dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged. Moreover, the appellate court held that contrary to petitioner's claim, the fact that the complaint was filed three years after the misrepresentation was made cannot bar an investigation or inquiry by the Office of the Ombudsman into the questioned act. Finally, there was no denial of due process, since petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard and, in fact, participated in the proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman. [18] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [19] but it was denied in a Resolution [20] dated October 23, 2006. Hence, the petition assigning the follow