A.M. No. P-18-3882 (Formerly OCA IPI No.13-4207-P) - PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION OFFICE, BY ATTY. JOCELYN Y. DACUMOS, COMPLAINANT, V. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER II CAROLINA A. PAUMIG, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGBILARAN CITY.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the [respondent] is found guilty of SERIOUS DISHONESTY and is hereby meted the penalty of Dismissal from government service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office. The Civil Service Commission is ordered to cancel her civil service eligibility, if any, in accordance with Section 9, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. The Honorable Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Corella, Province of Bohol, is hereby directed to implement the aforesaid penalty of Dismissal upon [respondent] and to furnish this Office with the office order or memorandum evidencing said implementation indicating the subject OMB case number. x x x x. [12] In a Letter [13] dated July 29, 2013 addressed to Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Pelagio S. Apostol (Deputy Ombudsman Apostol), Mayor Tocmo informed the former that he cannot implement and enforce the Decision considering that respondent is no longer connected with the local government unit of Corella, Bohol. As respondent is now under the supervision of the Supreme Court, having transferred to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Deputy Ombudsman Apostol wrote a Letter [14] dated September 30, 2013 addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), informing the OCA of the above-quoted Decision and asking them to implement the same. Records of the case were then elevated to the Supreme Court and respondent was formally charged with serious dishonesty before the OCA. In her Comment [15] dated February 28, 2014, respondent argued that being an employee of the court, it is the Supreme Court, not the OMB, which has disciplinary authority over her. Respondent further contends that the OMB Decision has not yet attained finality in view of her motion for reconsideration thereof. Hence, respondent insists that the OMB Decision cannot be implemented against her. In addition, respondent avers that the act complained of was committed while she was still an employee of the Municipality of Corella, Bohol and that she was already relieved of her liabilities when she transferred to the RTC. In its Administrative Matter for Agenda [16] dated September 24, 2015, the OCA found the issue for resolution to be: whether the Decision dated February 19, 2013 of the OMB can be enforced despite respondent's transfer to the judiciary. [17] The OCA answered the said issue in the negative, pointing out that when respondent transferred to the judiciary on October 2, 2000, the OMB has no more jurisdiction to discipline her. The OCA cited Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6770 [18] or The Ombudsman Act of 1989, viz .: Section 21. Official Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions . - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-ow