G.R. No. 174045 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, vs. LALINETH LISONDRA, TERESITA SERGIO, and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER TWENTY-FIRST DIVISION), Cagayan de Oro City.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents Tomas B. Gomez, Lalineth Lisondra, Rey Torralba, Melly B. Campos and Teresita Sergio are hereby found guilty of DISHONESTY and are hereby meted the supreme penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government owned or controlled corporation. The herein case against respondent Milagros Orlandez is hereby dismissed. [6] Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the OMB denied in its Order dated 24 July 2003. MPDO Lisondra and Sergio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. [7] The appellate court, in a Decision dated 31 May 2005, ruled on their appeal in this wise: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED in so far as it seeks to set aside the finding of the Ombudsman that Petitioners LALINETH A. LISONDRA and TERESITA SERGIO are administratively liable for dishonesty. The petition is GRANTED in so far as it seeks to nullify the penalty directly imposed by the OMBUDSMAN upon Petitioners. The OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN is hereby DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS relative to this case to the incumbent Municipal Mayor or Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality of La Paz, Agusan del Sur pursuant to Section 13(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 15(3) of Republic Act No. 6770. [8] The OMB filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which, in a Resolution dated 30 May 2006, the Court of Appeals resolved thus: WHEREFORE, Public Respondents motion for reconsideration and Petitioners urgent motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are hereby DENIED. [9] The Court of Appeals found precedent in the following cases and explained: In Concerned Officials of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Vasquez , 240 SCRA 502 (1995), the Supreme Court declared: The powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman have been categorized into the following headings: Investigatory Power, Prosecutory Power, Public Assistance Functions, Authority to Inquire and Obtain Information, and Function to Adopt, Institute and Implement Preventive Measures. The power to dismiss is not found in the above enumerations of the powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman; neither can it be logically placed under any of the abovementioned categories. In Tapiador vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma , G.R. No. 129124, March 15, 2002, the Supreme Court emphatically held that [u]nder Section 13, subparagraph (3), of the Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman can only `RECOMMEND THE REMOVAL OF THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE FOUND TO BE AT FAULT, TO THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL CONCERNED. (Emphasis Ours) Likewise, in PNB-REPUBLIC BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK , G.R. No. 127370, September 14, 1999, the Supreme Court declared, thus: The power of the Ombudsman is only investigatory i