G.R. No. 235837 - BELINA AGBAYANI CONCEPCION, VS. THE FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, dismissed from the service along with the accessory penalties of: ( a ) cancellation of civil service eligibility; ( b ) forfeiture of retirement benefits; and ( c ) perpetual disqualification from holding public office. [24] The Ombudsman held that petitioner played a vital role in the release of Congressman Cagas' PDAF when she recommended its release to CARED, stressing that the funds would not have been transferred to the latter if not for petitioner's certifications, approvals, and signatures in the relevant documents. It added that despite the apparent irregularities in the documents submitted, petitioner helped expedite the release of PDAF disbursements to the dummy NGOs of Napoles. [25] The Ombudsman noted that the TRC did not even bother to conduct a due diligence audit on the said NGOs, which possessed neither the accreditation to transact with the government nor any track record in project implementation. [26] In conclusion, the Ombudsman held that the acts of petitioner in directly allowing the NGOs to be project implementors without complying with the pertinent laws and regulations amounted to Grave Misconduct. [27] Moreover, the Ombudsman ruled that TRC's repeated illegal transfers of public funds to the said NGOs for non-existent projects amounted to distortion of the truth and thus, was tantamount to Serious Dishonesty. [28] Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), [29] Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty are offenses punishable by dismissal from the service, even on the first offense. [30] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, [31] which was denied in an Order [32] dated May 4, 2017. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review. [33] The CA Ruling In a Resolution [34] dated July 17, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition outright on the ground that petitioner: ( a ) failed to append material portions of the record; [35] ( b ) attached only one (1) registry receipt as proof of service of the petition, without any indication as to whether the same pertained to the FIO or the Ombudsman, despite claiming in her Affidavit of Service [36] that a copy of the petition had been sent to the FIO and the Ombudsman, in accordance with Section 5, [37] Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; and ( c ) was not represented by counsel. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, [38] attaching to her motion copies of most [39] of the lacking documents. She likewise implored substantial compliance with the rule on proof of service, explaining that the registry return receipt in her Affidavit of Service pertained to the FIO. At the least, she pleaded that the CA could have directed her to furnish a copy of her petition to the Ombudsman before it dismissed her appeal outright. Finally, she maintained that considering the gravity of the penalty of dismissal imposed upon her, the CA should have traversed the merits of the case instead of dismissing it on mere technicalities. H