G.R. NO. 162403 - FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA, VS. ROMEO DICEN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA , Provincial Agriculturist of the Province of Samar, Catbalogan, Samar, is guilty of MISCONDUCT and hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE FOR SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY , this being the second time he had been imposed administrative penalty by this Office. SO DECIDED . [12] On the same date, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas approved a Resolution [13] finding probable cause for perjury against the petitioner. However, in a Resolution [14] dated January 24, 2003, the Ombudsman found probable cause against the petitioner for falsification under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated the administrative case to the CA via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, with a prayer for temporary restraining order, injunction, and prohibition. Meantime, on May 15, 2003, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas issued an Order [15] to the Provincial Governor of Samar, directing the latter to immediately implement the penalty of suspension from office for six months without pay, and to inform the Office of the Ombudsman of her compliance within five days from receipt thereof. On June 2, 2003, the Office of the Governor of Samar issued a Memorandum [16] to the petitioner, directing him to cease and desist from the performance of the functions and responsibilities of his office for six months without pay from receipt thereof. As a consequence, the petitioner filed a motion to implead the Office of the Governor of Samar and the Office of the Ombudsman in the petition before the CA on June 18, 2003. In his comment to the petition, the respondent averred that the petitioner's sole recourse was to file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, which exercises exclusive jurisdiction to review orders and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman, as mandated by Section 27 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989. The respondent added that the petitioner was convicted on the basis of preponderant evidence found against him during the clarificatory hearing conducted by the graft investigation officer assigned to the case. On September 29, 2003, the CA affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. The fallo of the decision reads: Foregoing premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 29 May 2002 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0963 is hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED.