Case Digest (G.R. No. 207355)
Facts:
This is Jennifer A. Agustin-Se and Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Office of the President et al., G.R. No. 207355, promulgated December 19, 2016, decided by the Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners, both Assistant Special Prosecutors III of the Office of the Ombudsman, were assigned to prosecute cases arising from an early-1995 complaint by the Judge Advocate General's Office that was docketed as OMB-AFP-CRIM-94-0218 alleging ghost deliveries to the Philippine Air Force (about P89,000,000). In a 12 April 1996 Resolution, investigators Rainier C. Almazan and Rudifer G. Falcis II (with concurrence by then-Ombudsman Division Director Orlando C. Casimiro) recommended filing informations for violations of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 and/or malversation through falsification. Subsequent memoranda in 1996 and 1998 modified recommendations and, on 2 March 1998, Ombudsman Desierto approved a modification dismissing charges against certain officers including Lt. Gen. Acot and Bgen. Dulinayan.
Record officers discovered in 2005 that the main folder for the 12 April 1996 Resolution could not be located. This prompted internal review, and memoranda from the Office of Legal Affairs in 2007 concluded the 1996 Resolution “had no force and effect because it was never promulgated,” recommending that informations be filed; acting pursuant to delegated authority, respondent Casimiro approved those recommendations in March 2009 and infecting the filing of informations which were docketed with the Sandiganbayan as SB-09-CRM-0184 to 0189. Accused filed motions to quash and to defer arraignment, asserting prescription and denial of speedy disposition. Petitioners, who were to comment in the Sandiganbayan proceedings, sought certified docket entries but faced delays and filed motions for extension of time.
Instead of filing the required comment, petitioners submitted a Memorandum dated 5 January 2010 alleging procedural lapses and imputing blame to Casimiro; John I.C. Turalba, Officer-in-Charge, attached that memorandum to records and relieved petitioners from the cases. Petitioners alleged that Turalba’s action and Casimiro’s subsequent demand for explanation were improper; in response, Casimiro filed a complaint with the Internal Affairs Board (IAB) on 4 February 2010 for libel, RA No. 3019 violations and administratively for grave misconduct, and petitioners were placed under preventive suspension. Petitioners filed an administrative complaint against Casimiro and Turalba with the Office of the President (OP) on 3 November 2010.
The OP dismissed petitioners’ complaint in a Decision dated 14 June 2011 (denying reconsideration on 2 November 2011), concluding, inter alia, that delays in the preliminary investigation could not be validly attributed to Casimiro and that the 5 January 2010 memorandum was not confidential or a protected disclosure under the Ombudsman’s whistleblowing rules. Petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, but in a Decision dated 29 November 2012 the Court of Appeals affirmed the OP...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the OP and the Court of Appeals violate petitioners’ right to due process by not considering the evidence they presented during the administrative adjudication?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in ruling there was no substantial evidence against respondent Casimiro (and against Casimiro and Turalba) for delay, confidentiality violations, or statutory breaches (Office Orders, Sec. 35 of RA No. 6770, Sec. 3(k) of RA No. 3019)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the OP’s finding that petitioners’ preventive suspension was justified by their delay in filing comment in SB-09-CRM-0184–0189?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the OP’s dismissal of petitioners’ administrative complaint as contrary to the evidence and established jurisprudence?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in applying the provisions of EO No. 13 (i.e., in treating the absence of an ODESLA recommendation as fatal)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err by failing to rule on various subsidiary issues raised by p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)