G.R. No. 169982 - SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP (PNP-CIDG).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondent SALVADOR A. PLEYTO , is hereby found guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and DISHONESTY and is meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. The Honorable Secretary, Department of Public Works and Highways, Port Area, Manila, is hereby directed to implement this Order immediately upon receipt hereof and to promptly inform this Office of compliance therewith. [10] Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman in an Order [11] dated 12 October 2004. Petitioner then assailed before the Court of Appeals the Decision, dated 28 June 2004, and Order, dated 12 October 2004, of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-03-0347-I by filing a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87086. Petitioner prayed to the appellate court that: Upon filing of the petition, a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction be immediately issued directing the Office of the Ombudsman, its officials and agents, or persons acting for and on it [ sic ] behalf, including the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways from implementing the assailed Decision of the Ombudsman dated 28 June 2004 and its Order dated 12 October 2004. After hearing on the merits, that judgment be rendered nullifying the assailed Decision of the Ombudsman dated June 28, 2004 and Order dated October 12, 2004 in OMB-C-A-03-0347-I. Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. [12] On 5 November 2004, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the implementation of the assailed Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing petitioner from service and directed the PNP-CIDG, the named respondent in petitioners Petition for Review, to file its Comment thereto. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the PNP-CIDG, requested an extension of 30 days, or until 28 December 2004, within which to file its Comment on the Petition. However, even before the OSG could file its Comment, the Office of the Ombudsman filed its own Comment (with Motions to Intervene; Admit Comment; and Recall Temporary Restraining Order) on 29 December 2004. It sought leave from the Court of Appeals to adduce pertinent facts and arguments to show that it acted with due process and impartiality, and relied only on the evidence on record in adjudging petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Office of the Ombudsman insisted that it has been shown by overwhelming evidence, as well as by petitioners own admissions in his counter-affidavit and other pleadings before the Office of the Ombudsman and his Petition before the Court of Appeals, that petitioner committed gross