G.R. No. 178923 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. ROLANDO L. MAGNO AND THE COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIFTH DIVISION).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office rules and so holds that: Respondent ROLANDO L. MAGNO is hereby FOUND GUILTY of the offense of GRAVE MISCONDUCT, and for which he is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE WITH ALL ITS ACCESSORY PENALTIES, pursuant to Section 52(A-3), Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; Respondent MARIO "MAR" L. JIMENEZ is hereby found guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and for which he is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE WITH ALL ITS ACCESSORY PENALTIES, pursuant to Section 52(A-3), Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. In view, however, of recent developments which now preclude this Office from dismissing him from office, it is (sic) hereby ordered the forfeiture of his retirement benefits and his perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service; Respondents FLORCEFIDA M. BABIDA and SILVESTRE A. DE LEON are hereby ABSOLVED of the instant charge; and For having been rendered moot and academic, the instant case against respondents JOEY P. MARQUEZ and ANTONETTE ANTONIO is hereby DISMISSED. [19] Magno filed with the Ombudsman a Motion for Reconsideration of the afore-quoted Decision. He alleged in his Motion that he was not a signatory to the Joint Counter-Affidavit submitted on 3 April 2000 in OMB-0-00-0350 and adopted in OMB-ADM-0-00-0148; consequently, he argued that he "can not be adversely affected by whatever unfavorable allegations contained therein regarding the refusal of [the other Parañaque City officials] to pay Carreon due to lack of funds." [20] The 3 June 2005 Decision of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-00-0148, which adjudged Magno guilty of Grave Misconduct based on the Joint Counter-Affidavit which he did not execute, was clearly erroneous. Contrary to the allegations in the said Joint Counter-Affidavit, Magno did not deny signing the ROAs and the PRs for the book purchases but explained that its was only an initial step for the purchase of the dictionaries and textbooks, and was proper and legal since it was part of his official functions and duties. Moreover, to negate the claim of injury, Magno attached a certification [21] dated 15 August 2003, issued by the current Parañaque City Treasurer showing that payment for the dictionaries and textbooks were already received by Kejo Educational System, [22] Merylvin Publishing House [23] and Southern Christian Commercial. [24] The Ombudsman, in its Order issued on 22 August 2005, denied Magno's Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed its Decision of 3 June 2005. Magno elevated his case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 91080. Magno grounded his appeal on the following arguments: that Carreon had no legal standing to institute the administrative case against him; that he signed the ROAs and PRs for the book purchases as part of his official duties