Title
Casing vs. Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 192334
Decision Date
Jun 13, 2012
Traffic Enforcer Conrado Casing is dismissed from service and faces probable cause for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 after being found administratively liable for grave misconduct and indirectly demanding a share from the salary of contractual Traffic Enforcers under his supervision.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192334)

Facts:

  • Conrado Casing served as a Traffic Enforcer and Head of Task Force Traffic at the Novaliches District Center in Quezon City.
  • Jaime C. Velasco and Angeles Dellova were employed as contractual Traffic Enforcer/Field Coordinators under Casing's supervision in 2003.
  • Casing informed them about the possibility of receiving salary advances through an intermediary named Arlene Sebastian.
  • The complainants took a two-month cash advance, later discovering a deduction of P2,000.00 from their salaries, with half of this amount going to Casing.
  • In December 2003, the Quezon City government allocated P2,500.00 as a "Pamaskong Handog" for employees, which was withdrawn by liaison officer Fe Chua and given to Casing.
  • Casing did not return the funds despite repeated demands from Velasco and Dellova.
  • In December 2005, Casing recommended against renewing the complainants' contracts, resulting in their termination.
  • Velasco and Dellova filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, accusing Casing of malversation, violation of Republic Act No. 3019, and dishonesty.
  • The Ombudsman found Casing administratively liable for grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal.
  • Casing's appeal to the Court of Appeals was unsuccessful, prompting him to file a certiorari petition against the Ombudsman’s findings.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
  • It upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against Casing for violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019.
  • The Court confirmed that the Ombudsman acted within its authority and did not exhibit grave abuse of discretion.
  • The com...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Office of the Ombudsman possesses broad discretion in investigating and prosecuting complaints against public officials.
  • The determination of probable cause is primarily the Ombudsman's responsibility, with the Court refraining from interference unless there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion.
  • The standard for probable caus...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.