DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REGION VIII, AND FLORA DELA PEÑA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence to hold respondents RAFAEL C. OMEGA, PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG , CRISOLOGO R. BABULA, and JOSE M. JOCANO of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, it is respectfully recommended that they be meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM THE SERVICE FOR ONE (1) YEAR WITHOUT PAY. [15] (Emphasis added.) The above guilty verdict was mainly predicated on the finding that the Certification of Acceptance and the COA Inspection Report, among other documents, were falsified, there being no actual delivery on December 20, 1996 of the covered hemoanalyzer. There was thus no legal basis for the issuance of DV 101-9612-1986 and the corresponding Landbank check for PhP 1,161,817.35. Subsequently, Gobenciong, et al. moved for reconsideration, but the Ombudsman, by an Order of August 10, 2000, denied their motion. In due time, Gobenciong appealed from the above decision and order to the appellate court, the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61687. On November 16, 2000, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, through Director Virginia P. Santiago, by an Order, [16] directed the DOH Regional Office No. VIII to immediately implement its Decision and impose the penalties decreed therein, which, in the case of Gobenciong, was one-year suspension from office without pay. On December 11, 2000, Gobenciong moved that Santiago be cited in contempt of court [17] for issuing the November 16, 2000 Order despite being notified of his appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 61687. Like his earlier similar motion, this motion was neither denied nor granted by the CA. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49585 Long after the issuance of the Decision dated March 21, 2000 in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370, the CA, on November 26, 2002, rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 49585, denying Gobenciongs petition for certiorari assailing the directive, and the implementation thereof, for the immediate execution of his preventive suspension. Dispositively, the CA wrote: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition for certiorari is DENIED DUE COURSE and hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.