G.R. NO. 169241 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. PENDATUN G. LAJA AND THE COURT OF APPEALS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, WITH THE FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED , this Office finds respondent PENDATUN G. LAJA , Provincial Treasurer of Tawi-Tawi and currently Officer-In-Charge of Office of the Assistant Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance-Legaspi City, GUILTY of the administrative charges of DISHONESTY, NEGLECT OF DUTY and GRAVE MISCONDUCT pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code and Section 52, paragraph (A), sub-paragraph (1, 2 and 3) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The subject offenses being all classified as grave, respondent Laja is consequently meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE , with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification to hold public office and cancellation of civil service eligibility, effective upon the finality of this Decision. SO DECREED. [7] Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration [8] which was denied in a Joint Order dated September 27, 2004. Thus, he filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction [9] with the Court of Appeals where the same was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00101-MIN. On March 8, 2005, the appellate court issued a Temporary Restraining Order for a period of 60 days enjoining the enforcement of the Joint Decision and required petitioner to file a comment and to show cause why a writ of preliminary injunction should not issue. On March 18, 2005, petitioner endorsed the foregoing resolution of the appellate court to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for appropriate action. Thereafter, the OSG filed an Entry of Appearance with Motion to Defer Filing of Comment [10] pending receipt of the petition and its accompanying documents. Upon receipt of the petition, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion dated May 16, 2005 [11] praying that it be excused from further participation in the case on the ground that under Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it is the private respondents who are tasked to defend the validity of the proceedings below as well as the challenged Joint Decision dated April 15, 2004 and Joint Order dated September 27, 2004. On April 4, 2005, counsel for private respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 00101-MIN filed a Comment [12] praying for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of forum shopping, pointing out that Laja appealed the Joint Decision to this Court by way of a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which was denied in a Resolution dated January 12, 2005 and a motion for reconsideration thereof is still pending. Due to the impending expiration of the 60-day temporary restraining order issued by the appellate court, Laja filed a Motion To Resolve the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Extend the Lifetime of the Temporary Restraining Order. [13] On May 12, 2005, the appellate court issued a Resolution granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on the condition that a