G.R. No. 161629 - ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, HON. ABELARDO L. APORTADERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN, AND OMBUDSMAN'S FACT FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR AGAPITO ROSALES.DECISION -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, it is respectfully recommended that: Respondent ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA be SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year for Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service; The instant case against ATTY. ARTHEL B. CARONONGAN be DISMISSED, the same having been rendered moot and academic; and The instant case against respondent MA. ELENA P. ANG be DISMISSED for lack of sufficient evidence. SO RESOLVED. [6] Respondent Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. reviewed the Joint Resolution which was approved by respondent Ombudsman Desierto on December 29, 1999. [7] In the meantime, on July 9, 1999, respondent Ombudsman approved a Resolution [8] dated June 22, 1999 of Graft Investigation Officer Marilou B. Ancheta-Mejica, dismissing the criminal charges against petitioner for insufficiency of evidence. [9] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration [10] in the administrative case alleging that the BOC which reviews all applications for TRVs extension, approved the TRVs in question, hence, petitioner argued that it effectively declared the applications for extension regular and in order and waived any infirmity thereon. In an Order [11] dated February 8, 2000, Graft Officer Reyes recommended the denial of the motion for reconsideration which was approved by respondent Ombudsman on March 24, 2000 but reduced the period of suspension from one (1) year to nine (9) months without pay. On April 13, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which included a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order to enjoin public respondents from implementing the order of suspension. The Court of Appeals issued the TRO on April 19, 2000. In its Decision dated August 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's suspension but reduced the period from nine (9) months to six (6) months and one (1) day without pay. [12] With the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on the following grounds: I. IN PROMULGATING ITS ASSAILED DECISION, RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS MANIFESTLY OVERLOOKED THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT FACTS AND MATTERS WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER: ... II. THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE FINDING OF THE OMBUDSMAN IS NOT MERELY ADVISORY ON THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION (BI) IS CONTRARY TO THE PERTINENT PROVISION OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURT. III. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE OMBUDSMAN'S RESOLUTION FINDING PETITIONER ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE CONSTITUTES AN INDIRECT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE POWER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION OVER IMMIGRATION MATTERS. [13] The petition lacks merit. Petitioner insists that it was the BOC which approved the questioned applications for the extension of the TRVs. He denies that he m