Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 258914 -

G.R. No. 258914 - JOCELYN ELEAZAR MONTEROS, VS. TASK FORCE ABONO-FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 3019RA 3019,RA 6770RA 9184,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, JOCELYN E. MONTEROS and ARMANDO M. ELUMBA are found guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Accordingly, they are meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with cancellation of their eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, pursuant to Section 52 of The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, JOCELYN E. MONTEROS and ARMANDO M. ELUMBA are found guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Accordingly, they are meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with cancellation of their eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, pursuant to Section 52 of The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. In the event that the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE can no longer be enforced due to respondents' retirement, resignation or separation from the service for any reason, the same shall be converted into a FINE EQUIVALENT TO ONE YEAR SALARY for each respondent, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondent's retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their office. It shall be understood that the accessory penalties attached to principal penalty of Dismissal shall continue to be imposed. FURTHER, the charges against LEONARDO L. EDERA, JR., MARIA S. GEOTINA and CARLO REYNALDO F. LOZADA, JR., are dismissed for not acquiring jurisdiction over their persons. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 258914 - JOCELYN ELEAZAR MONTEROS, VS. TASK FORCE ABONO-FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library