G.R. NO. 168718 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. FARIDA T. LUCERO AND COURT OF APPEALS (CEBU CITY). D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent had clearly committed DISHONESTY upon which a penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with the accessory penalties of FORFEITURE OF ALL BENEFITS and DISQUALIFICATON TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE IS HEREBY IMPOSED. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the aforequoted Decision, but the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) denied it on January 26, 2004. Aggrieved with the aforesaid Decision and Order of the Respondent Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), the Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Review thereof. The grounds set forth by the Petitioner in her petition are as follows: I THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT SHE IS GUILTY OF DISHONESTY. II THE RESPONDENT OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) HAS NO POWER TO DIRECTLY DISMISS HER FROM THE SERVICE. [2] In its Decision [3] dated June 15, 2005, the appellate court upheld the finding of the Ombudsman and found petitioner guilty of dishonesty. However, the CA declared that the Ombudsman had no authority to order petitioner's dismissal from the service in accordance with the ruling in Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman. [4] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated July 20, 2003 and the Order dated January 26, 2004 rendered and issued by the Respondent Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) in OMB-VIS-A-02-0254-F but only insofar as said office directly imposes upon the Petitioner the penalty of dismissal from the service. The said office may recommend such penalty to the proper disciplining authority. SO ORDERED.