G.R. No. 149634 - Torres vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corp.

A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 was filed by petitioners Orlando C. Casimiro, in his capacity as Acting Ombudsman, and Rogelio L. Singson, as Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
The petition assailed a Court of Appeals (CA) decision and resolution which had nullified an earlier Office of the Ombudsman's (OMB) order (dated July 18, 2011) and reinstated an order from April 29, 2011.

In 2005, the General Investigation Bureau-A of the OMB conducted a lifestyle check on respondent Josefino N. Rigor, then Regional Director of DPWH-National Capital Region (NCR).
Based on the lifestyle check, the OMB’s GIB-A filed a complaint against Rigor alleging both criminal and administrative offenses for unexplained wealth and violations of Republic Act (R.A.) Nos. 3019 and 1379.
The complaint primarily centered on significant omissions in Rigor’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), including:

Fourteen parcels of land in Barrio Maluid, Victoria, Tarlac;
Seven parcels of land in San Roque and San Rafael, Tarlac City;
Additional real properties such as a parcel in Tarlac City under two different titles;
A commercial/residential building in Sampaloc, Manila;
Two vehicles (a Toyota RAV4 SUV and a Dodge Ram Road Trek); and
Business interests in corporations including Jetri Construction Corporation and Disneyland Bus Line, Inc.

On July 28, 2006, the OMB issued a Decision finding Rigor guilty of Dishonesty. The ruling ordered his dismissal from service, along with accessory penalties such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual reemployment disqualification.
Rigor filed a motion for reconsideration; on April 29, 2011, the OMB granted the motion and modified the finding to Simple Negligence, imposing instead a fine of One Thousand Pesos and a warning against repetition.
Shortly thereafter, the DPWH, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed an Omnibus Motion to intervene, arguing that there were compelling reasons to reverse the April 29, 2011 decision.
On July 18, 2011, the OMB issued a new Order setting aside its prior April 29, 2011 ruling and found Rigor guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents, thereby reinstating the dismissal from service and associated penalties.

Rigor challenged the OMB orders by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the OMB in allowing the DPWH’s intervention and in modifying the penalty.
On July 4, 2012, the CA nullified and set aside the OMB Order dated July 18, 2011, reverting to the April 29, 2011 decision which limited his liability to a fine and a finding of Simple Negligence.
The OMB and the DPWH subsequently filed the instant Petition for Review, contending that the CA erred in its approach, particularly in accepting a petition for certiorari instead of a proper appeal under Rule 43.

Rigor’s SALNs from various years (1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002) allegedly omitted or misrepresented key assets and business interests, including:

Properties owned by his wife;
Multiple versions of the 1999 SALN with discrepancies in declared net worth;
Alleged mischaracterization of property ownership (e.g., fourteen parcels in Victoria, Tarlac) and a reconstitution of lost old SALNs due to a fire in the DPWH Legal Office.

These discrepancies raised questions about Rigor’s compliance with Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, which mandates full disclosure under oath of assets and financial interests, including those of his spouse.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 as the proper remedy, instead of the prescribed appeal mechanism under Rule 43 for decisions of quasi-judicial agencies like the OMB.
Whether the CA correctly ruled that the DPWH was precluded from intervening before the OMB to contest the April 29, 2011 decision which downgraded Rigor’s offense to Simple Negligence.
Whether the CA erred in failing to consider the substantial evidence asserting that Rigor’s omissions and misrepresentations in his SALNs warranted a finding of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents instead of mere Simple Negligence.
Whether the application of the substantial evidence rule sufficiently supports the administrative finding and the imposition of the severe penalty (dismissal from service) against Rigor.