G.R. No. 242005 - RAMIL A. BAGAOISAN, M.D., CHIEF OF HOSPITAL I, CORTES MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL, CORTES, SURIGAO DEL SUR, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, DAVAO CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, meted the penalty of dismissal from service, including the accessory penalties thereof. Further, in the event that dismissal can no longer be enforced due to separation from service, the penalty shall be converted into a fine in the amount equivalent to his salary for one (1) year, payable to the Ombudsman, which may be deducted from his accrued leave credits or any receivable from the government. [20] The Ombudsman found that there was a flagrant disregard of Section 59, Chapter 8, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292, when petitioner designated his wife to other positions in the government, namely, Administrative Officer and Liaison Officer, as well as "Internal Control Unit." Petitioner's argument that the rule on nepotism proscribes only appointment and not designation is misplaced, as there is no distinction between them. The Ombudsman fully explained that if a designation is not to be deemed included in the term "appointed" as provided for in the law, then any appointing authority may circumvent the rule by merely designating, and not appointing, a relative within the prohibited degree to a vacant position in the career service. Finally, petitioner's defense of good faith is immaterial in the determination of his administrative liability. [21] Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration, [22] insisting that the positions to which he designated his wife were non-existent. [23] In an Order [24] dated May 2, 2017, the Ombudsman denied his motion. Hence, he appealed [25] to the CA. The CA's Ruling In a Decision [26] dated February 28, 2018, the CA denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed in toto the Ombudsman's ruling finding him guilty of Grave Misconduct, [27] considering the undisputed facts that Nelita is petitioner's wife and he designated her as Administrative Officer and Liaison Officer, as well as "Internal Control Unit," at the same time that she was holding the position of Nutritionist-Dietician I of the Cortes Municipal Hospital. Echoing the Ombudsman, the CA held that petitioner's defense of good faith, as well as his wife's alleged non-acceptance of additional compensation for the said designations, are immaterial. That there was no budgetary allocation appropriated for the said positions does not detract from the fact that petitioner issued the office memoranda creating the said positions to which he designated his wife. The Ombudsman also stressed that Section 59, Chapter 8, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 refers to "all appointments," whether original or promotional in nature. [28] Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration [29] which was denied in a Resolution [30] dated August 23, 2018; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in upholding the Ombudsman's finding that petitioner is guilty of Grave Misconduct and in meting upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. The Court's Ruling The petition lacks merit. The prohibitory norm against ne