G.R. No. 180666 - LEODEGARIO R. BASCOS, JR. AND ELEAZAR B. PAGALILAUAN, VS. ENGR. JOSE B. TAGANAHAN AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding [herein petitioners] TSD Director LEODEGARIO R. BASCOS, JR. and Grains Operations Officer ELEAZAR B. PAGALILAUAN, both of the National Food Authority, GUILTY OF DISHONESTY, they should be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, pursuant to Section 52 (A) (1) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. Finding [Provincial Manager] TOMAS R. ESCAREZ of NFA San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, to be not guilty of the offense charged, the complaint against him is, as it is hereby, DISMISSED. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Administrator of the National Food Authority for proper implementation upon finality hereof. [25] (Emphasis ours.) Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation, [26] but the same was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman in an Order [27] dated 20 October 2005. Petitioners then filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review [28] under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, contesting the judgment against them of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-02-0379-I. Their Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92. In a Resolution [29] dated 18 January 2006, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition, inasmuch as its Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was signed only by petitioner Pagalilauan, and there was no attached document to prove that petitioner Bascos had authorized the former to sign on his behalf. On 6 February 2006, petitioner Pagalilauan filed a Motion for Reconsideration [30] of the 18 January 2006 Resolution, explaining that his co-petitioner Bascos had gone to the United States of America in the middle of November 2005 to undergo medical check-up and treatment. Petitioner Bascos had not returned since then. When Pagalilauan received, on 7 December 2005, the Order dated 20 October 2005 of the Office of the Ombudsman denying their Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation, he informed petitioner Bascos of the same only by telephone and other means of communication. Despite the physical absence of petitioner Bascos, petitioner Pagalilauan claimed that the former had a hand in the preparation and the filing of their Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. In a Resolution [31] dated 15 February 2006, the Court of Appeals ordered petitioner Pagalilauan to submit, within fifteen (15) days from notice, a written authorization duly executed by petitioner Bascos, empowering petitioner Pagalilauan to execute the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in the Petition on Bascos's behalf. The Court of Appeals further required that petitioner Bascos' written authorization be duly authenticated by the proper consular officer of Philippines in the United States of America where he was staying. On 6 March 2006, petitioners Bascos and Pagalilauan filed their Compliance [32] with the 15 February 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. In lieu of a written authorizati