Case Digest (G.R. No. 173865)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 173865)
Facts:
Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, Office of the Ombudsman v. J. Fernando U. Campana, G.R. No. 173865, August 20, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman (represented below by Atty. Melchor Arthur H. Carandang); respondent is J. Fernando U. Campana, then Senior Vice‑President/VP, London Representative Office, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), International Operations, General Insurance Group (GIG).The underlying facts began with ECOBEL Land, Inc.’s application in October 1997 for GSIS financing and a later application for a surety (payment) bond to guarantee a US$10 million loan from a foreign creditor with Philippine Veterans Bank as obligee. After evaluation, GSIS officials found defects in the collateral (a second mortgage and later suspected spurious title). Despite cancellation attempts and internal doubts, the GSIS Surety Bond No. 029132 was approved March 11, 1998. Several GSIS officers (including Amalio Mallari and Alex M. Valencerina) were involved in the internal processing; Valencerina prepared cancellation notices and certifications reflecting the bond’s status. ECOBEL nonetheless drew US$9,307,000.00 under the bond, and ECOBEL tendered bond premium payments which were presented to and accepted by respondent Campana in GSIS’s London representative office. Campana was not furnished copies of cancellation notices and accepted cheques, one of which later became stale.
The FFIB of the Ombudsman conducted fact‑finding and filed criminal and administrative complaints (dated June 30, 2000) against Campana and co‑accused for violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019 and for gross neglect, inefficiency and incompetence under Sec. 22(b), (p) Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code). The Sandiganbayan earlier granted Campana’s motion to quash the criminal information as to him (Resolution, Aug. 14, 2003), but the administrative proceedings continued.
After administrative proceedings, the Ombudsman’s PIAB-B rendered a Decision dated January 27, 2005 finding Campana guilty of gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence and imposing dismissal from service; an Order dated June 8, 2005 modified the disposition to hold Campana guilty of grave misconduct and imposed dismissal. Campana’s motion for reconsideration was denied September 1, 2005. He then petitioned the Court of Appeals, which on April 27, 2006 affirmed guilt for grave misconduct but—relying on Section 16, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V and Sec. 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service—mitigated the penalty to suspension without pay for one year, citing his 34 years of unblemished service. The Court of Appeals denied the Ombudsman’s and Solicitor General’s motions for reconsideration in a July 19, 2006 Resolution. The FFIB/Ombudsman filed this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to challenge only the Court of Appeals’ reduction of penalty.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reviewing and reducing the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman from dismissal to suspension?
- May respondent Campana’s length of service and unblemished record properly be considered mitigating circumstances warranting reduction of the penalty from dismissal to suspension?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)