G.R. No. 238563 - MANSUE NERY LUKBAN, VS. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO­MORALES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , it is hereby resolved as follows: OMB-C-C-11-0758-L (CRIMINAL CASE) 1) Respondents x x x, P/SSupt. Mansue Nery Lukban, x x x BE CHARGED before the Sandiganbayan with one (1) count of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 , as amended; x x x x 4) Respondents P/SSupt. Mansue Nery Lukban and PO3 Avensuel G. Dy BE CHARGED before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171, par (4), Revised Penal Code relative to Inspection Report Form dated November 13, 2009 ; x x x x OMB-C-A-11-0758-L (ADMINISTRATIVE CASE) 1) Respondents x x x, P/SSupt. Mansue Nery Lukban, x x x are hereby found GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service , and are thus meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE , including the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office, pursuant to the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 991936, as amended). If the penalty of dismissal from the service can no longer be served by reason of resignation or retirement, the alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to ONE YEAR salary is imposed, in addition to the same accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office. [19] As regards the administrative liability of Lukban, which is the subject of the instant case, the pertinent discussion in the Joint Resolution is reproduced below: Applying now the foregoing criteria to the present case, there exist substantial evidence to show that respondents Santiago, Jr., Ubalde, Villafuerte, Loreto, Saligumba, Antonio, Piano, Gongona, Paatan, Lukban , Recometa, Gaspar, Padojinog, and Dy, while in the exercise of their respective public duties and functions as participants to the questioned PNP procurement, conspired with each other to falsify documents, skirt procedures, circumvent rules, and defraud the government of millions of pesos in order to ultimately ensure the unwarranted benefit and pecuniary gain in favor of private respondents de Vera, MAPTRA, and FG [Arroyo]. These unlawful acts, as exhaustively discussed earlier, certainly constitute serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in that it caused severe pecuniary damage and prejudice to the government. Its immense debilitating effect on the govenm1ent service ce1iainly deserves the curtailment of respondents' privilege to continue holding public office. [20] (Emphasis supplied). Lukban's Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was denied by the Ombudsman in a Joint Resolution dated November 5, 2012 in OMB-C-A-11-0758-1. [21] Thus, he went to the CA questioning the finding of administrative liability against him. Ruling of the CA In a Decision [22] dated August 20, 2015 (CA Decision), the CA dismissed Lukban's petition for review, and sustained his administrative liability, ruling as follows: As Chief of the Management Di