Case Digest (G.R. No. 183507)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) v. Asteria E. Cruzabra, G.R. No. 183507, February 24, 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Anwar Mohamad Abdurasak and Jovina Tama Mohamad Abdurasak filed a petition with the Register of Deeds of General Santos City seeking the inclusion of the name “Ali Mohamad Abdurasak” in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-89456 and T-89458. Without the authorization of Asteria E. Cruzabra (respondent), the Register of Deeds, land registration examiner Bienvenido Managuit directed an office clerk to type the name on the face of the titles.
Following that unauthorized intercalation, one Datu Sarip E. Andang filed a criminal complaint against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao alleging falsification of public documents and usurpation of official functions. In her counter-affidavit, respondent asserted that the intercalation occurred outside her cubicle and without her authority, and that she refrained from correcting it because doing so would expose her or the author to a criminal charge; she also suggested the proper aggrieved parties should challenge the intercalation.
An Ombudsman prosecutor found no probable cause to charge respondent with usurpation and recommended the withdrawal of the information for falsification, but recommended filing an administrative case for simple misconduct. By Order of May 18, 2004, Deputy Ombudsman Antonio E. Valenzuela (acting for the Office) found respondent administratively liable for neglect of duty and imposed a penalty of suspension for one month without pay, citing Section 46, Book V, Title I of Executive Order No. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987).
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. By Decision of December 14, 2007 (authored by Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Justices Romulo V. Borja and Elihu A. Ybanez concurring), the Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman's Order, finding respondent not negligent though admonishing her to exercise greater prudence. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction to review the Office of the Ombudsman’s May 18, 2004 Order imposing one month suspension on respondent?
- Was respondent administratively guilty of neglect of duty based on the record before the Office...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)