OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. FLORITA A. MASING and JOCELYN A. TAYACTAC.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office finds substantial evidence that: Respondent Florita Masing is guilty of gross misconduct, neglect of duty and violation of Section 4, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of RA 6713 in relation to the collection of unauthorized fees, non-remittance of authorized fees and failure to account for public funds; and of misconduct in relation to the complaint of Felicidad Mojica, and she is hereby DISMISSED FROM [THE] SERVICE with all the accessory penalties including forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification from holding public office; and Respondent Jocelyn Tayactac is guilty of simple neglect of duty, and is hereby suspended for a period of six (6) months. A repetition of the same offense will be met with stiffer penalty. x x x x [1] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which the Ombudsman denied in an Order dated September 26, 2000. Respondents sought recourse to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61993. On February 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, viz : WHEREFORE , the joint decision of June 30, 2000 and the Order of September 26, 2000 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE ; and Administrative Cases Nos. OMB-MIN-ADM-97-193, OMB-MIN-ADM-97-249, OMB-MIN-ADM-97-253, and OMB-MIN-ADM-97-254 of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao are hereby DISMISSED . The IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT of the petitioners with full backwages and other benefits is further ORDERED in the interest of justice. [2] On April 13, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman, which was not impleaded as respondent in the cases, filed an Omnibus Motion to Intervene and for Reconsideration. [3] The Court of Appeals denied the omnibus motion on the grounds that (1) intervention is not proper because it is sought by the quasi-judicial body whose judgment is on appeal, and (2) intervention, even if permissible, is belated under Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. [4] Hence, the petition before us by the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as G.R. No. 165416. The complainant-parents filed their own petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision dated February 27, 2004, docketed as G.R. No. 165731. In G.R. No. 165584 , respondent Florita A. Masing faced yet another administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao filed by Erlinda P. Tan. [5] The charges were oppression, serious misconduct, discourtesy in the conduct of official duties, and physical or mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or vicious habits. As in the other administrative cases, respondent Masing filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case. The motion was denied, as well as respondents motion for reconsideration. On December 27, 1999, the Ombudsman for Mindanao found respondent Masing guilty as charged and ordered her suspension for six (6) months without pay. The DECS Regional Director, Regional O