G.R. No. 229634 - ATTY. AROLF M. ANCHETA, VS. FELOMINO C. VILLA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent AROLF M. ANCHETA guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and is hereby meted the penalty of fine, in lieu of suspension, equivalent to one (1) month of his salary, pursuant to Section 46 (D), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), in relation to Section 10, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, and Section 25 of R.A. No. 6770. [17] The Ombudsman found no relevant and competent evidence linking Ancheta to the alleged inclusion of the subject Order in the case records because the statements of Villa and his witnesses were all hearsay. [18] The Ombudsman also pointed out that if Ancheta was indeed biased and partial against Villa, the former would not have inhibited from the case but would have resolved it in the other party's favor. [19] However, the Ombudsman found it perplexing that despite Ancheta's inhibition from the case, the subject Order still found its way in the case records which was already reassigned to the Regional Adjudicator. Thus, the Ombudsman ruled that Ancheta either neglected to tear or pierce the printed unofficial order, or delete the same in his computer files after he inhibited from the case. According to the Ombudsman, this has unreasonably led to the filing of the instant case which could have been avoided had Ancheta not been remiss with his duty. Thus, the Ombudsman found Ancheta guilty of neglect of duty classified as simple considering that the subject Order did not cause undue injury or prejudice to Villa. [20] Ancheta moved for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order [21] dated March 7, 2016. On May 26, 2016, Ancheta filed an Appeal to the Head Office, which was likewise denied in an Order [22] dated June 14, 2016. The Ombudsman treated said appeal as a second Motion for Reconsideration (MR), which is a prohibited pleading. [23] Aggrieved, Ancheta filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The Ruling of the CA In a Resolution [24] dated September 20, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition outright for the following procedural defects: 1) there was no allegation as to when Ancheta received a copy of the assailed Decision and when he filed the MR; 2) the assailed Decision and Resolution stemmed from an administrative disciplinary complaint before the Ombudsman; hence, a petition for review under Rule 43 was the proper remedy, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; 3) the "Appeal to the Head of Office," being in the nature of a second MR, did not toll the running of the period to file a petition for review; and 4) payment of docket and other legal fees is short by P1,180.00. Ancheta filed an MR, which was denied in a Resolution [25] dated December 28, 2016. Hence, the instant petition. Petition before the Court In his Petition for Review on Certiorari , [26] Ancheta argues that the CA erred in dismissing his petition outright based on technicalit