G.R. No. 219936 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE (FIO), VS. ALDO BADANA ESMEÑA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent Former ore ALDO BADANA ESMEÑA of RDO No. 22, presently assigned at the Office of the Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 4, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, guilty of Simple Dishonesty. Respondent Aldo Badana Esmeña is hereby meted the penalty of Suspension for SIX (6) MONTHS in the Government Service pursuant to Section 10, Ru]e III, Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, in relation to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6770. The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Finance, Secretary Cesar Purisima, is hereby directed to implement this DECISION immediately upon receipt thereof pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure) in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 1, series of 2006 dated 11 April 2006 and to promptly inform this Office of the action taken hereon. SO DECIDED. [21] On the same day, the OMB issued a Resolution, [22] finding the existence of probable cause to charge respondent with Making Untruthful Statements in a Narration of Facts, punishable under Article 171, par. 4 of the RPC, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that an Information for violation of Article 171, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, be accordingly FILED in the proper court against respondent Former ore ALDO BADANA ESMEÑA of RDO No.22, presently assigned at the Office of the Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 4, City of San Fernando, Pampanga. SO RESOLVED. [23] On 12 August 2011, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion, [24] seeking reconsideration of the OMB decision in the administrative case on the ground of lack of due process. He argued that he was not validly served with the notices directing him to file his counter-affidavit. Likewise, he only received a copy of the decision on 11 August 2011. [25] Without waiting for the resolution of his omnibus motion, however, respondent filed a Petition for Review [26] with the CA, assailing both the decision in the administrative case and the resolution in the criminal case. He maintained that his right to due process was violated when the case against him was resolved without notice and hearing. [27] Ruling of the CA In its Decision [28] dated 30 April 2013, the CA reversed and set aside the assailed decision and resolution of the OMB. It found that respondent was indeed denied due process because he was not afforded a chance to present evidence on his behalf. [29] Petitioners subsequently filed a Manifestation and Motion (in lieu of Motion for Reconsideration on the Decision dated 30 April 2013), [30] (Manifestation and Motion) alleging that before the issuance of the CA decision, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (OMB-Luzon) issued an Order [31] granting respondent's Omnibus Motion to set aside the OMB decision in the administrative case. Thus, petitioners prayed that the case before the CA be c