G.R. No. 239315 - CORAZON C. CABOTAGE, JUANITO B. DAGUNO, JR., VIOLETA M. GAMIL, TERESITA E. TAM, ROBERTO P. VILLA, AND VILMA A. TIONGSON, VS. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE-OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in line with the above discussions, this Office rules that: OMB-C-C-14-0234 and OMB-C-C-14-0233 (1) Probable cause exists to indict respondents EDNA B. ANICAL, THELMA S. BALDOVINO, EVELYN C. DE LEON, JUANITO DAGUNO, JR., NESTORIO L. FERRERA, VIOLETA M. GAMIL, ZOHARAYDA L. OBOG, LIGAYA T. PRINSIPIO, JESUSA A. PUNSALAN, PROCESO A. SAAVEDRA, PAULINO H. SARMIENTO, TERESITA A. TAM, ROBERTO P. VILLA, CORAZON C. CABOTAGE, EVANGELINE G. SISON AND VILMA A. TIONGSON for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended. Let the corresponding Informations be filed before the appropriate Court. x x x x OMB-C-A-14-0204 x x x x (2) Respondents JUANITO B. DAGUNO, JR., VIOLETA M. GAMIL, PROCESO A. SAAVEDRA, TERESITA A. TAM, ROBERTO P. VILLA, CORAZON C. CABOTAGE, EVANGELINE G. SISON, and VILMA A. TIONGSON are guilty of Grave Misconduct punishable by DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, which shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits except for accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. In the event that the penalty of dismissal can no longer be enforced due to respondents' separation from the service, the same shall be converted into a Fine equivalent to respondents' salary for one year, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondents' retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivables from his office. It shall be understood that the accessory penalties attached to the principal penalty of Dismissal shall continue to be imposed. x x x x [9] Corazon C. Cabotage, Juanita B. Daguno, Jr., Violeta M. Gamil, Teresita E. Tam, Roberto P. Villa, and Vilma A. Tiongson (petitioners) with Proceso A. Saavedra (Saavedra) and Evangeline G. Sison (Sison) moved for reconsideration, but the Ombudsman denied it in its Joint Order [10] dated January 22, 2016. Aggrieved, petitioners with Saavedra and Sison filed a Petition for Review [11] before the CA raising the issues of whether: (1) their infractions constitute Grave Misconduct; (2) the penalty of dismissal is commensurate to their infractions; and (3) the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over Saavedra and Sison who had already retired from service prior to being administratively charged. CA Ruling In the Decision [12] dated September 22, 2017, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling that petitioners are guilty of Grave Misconduct. However, the CA dismissed the administrative complaint with respect to Saavedra and Sison for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman. The CA found that the case was filed on August 4, 2014 or more than a year after Saavedra and Sison retired from service on April 30, 2013 and June 29, 2013, respectively. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Joint Resolution dated August 7, 2015 and Joint Order dated January 22, 2016 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-14-0204, are AFFIRMED but MODIFIED such tha