G.R. No. 240124 - JOAN V. ALARILLA, VS. ROLANDO L. LORENZO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the OMB disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE , finding substantial evidence, judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent Joan V. Alarilla administratively liable for GRAVE MISCONDUCT and SERIOUS DISHONESTY, and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with the corresponding accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the service, pursuant to Section 46(A)(1) and (3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on the Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and Section 10, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by A.O. No. 17, in relation to Section 25 of R.A. No. 6770. In the event that the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE can no longer be enforced due to separation from the service of [petitioner], the same shall be converted into FINE in the amount equivalent to her salary for ONE (1) YEAR, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from her retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from office. It is understood, however, that the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility and perpetual disqualification to hold public office shall still be applied. The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government is hereby directed to implement this DECISION immediately upon receipt pursuant to Rule III, Section 7 of A.O. No. 07 (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure), as amended by A.O. No. 17 in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 1, series of 2006 dated April 11, 2006, and to promptly inform this Office of the action taken thereon. The complaint against respondent Eduardo A. Alarilla is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED . [20] (Emphases in the original) The OMB Decision was approved on December 16, 2016. [21] Aggrieved, the petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied in the OMB's March 1, 2017 Order. [22] Dissatisfied with the ruling, on June 29, 2017, [23] the petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Review (With Application for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) [24] under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. [25] She reiterated that she is not guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, and claimed that there was inordinate delay in the handling of her case. [26] Ruling of the CA In a Decision [27] dated January 30, 2018, the CA affirmed the OMB ruling. The CA agreed that the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. Moreover, it rejected the petitioner's claim that her right to the speedy disposition of her case was violated, absent proof that the alleged delay was vexatious and capricious. [28] The dispositive portion of the CA ruling states: WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED . The Decision dated November 2, 2016 of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon which was approved by the