Case Digest (G.R. No. 208976)
Facts:
Hon. Office of the Ombudsman v. Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Office of the Ombudsman; the respondent is Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr.; the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) participated by filing a manifestation and motion for clarification concerning the payment of back salaries. The case arose from PCSO’s operation of on-line lottery terminals and internal audits and verifications that identified unremitted lotto collections for Agency No. 14-5005-1, a unit supervised by Delos Reyes as Chief of the Central Operations Department’s (COD) Marketing and Online Division.
PCSO auditors (June 2001) recommended prompt bank deposit of lotto proceeds rather than keeping funds in a safe. A 2002 account validation reported unremitted collections (initially P428,349.00, later reduced to P387,879.00) and noted delayed submission of sales reports and partial remittances. The PCSO Legal Department investigated and, on May 14, 2003, filed administrative charges against Delos Reyes and Assistant Division Chief Elizabeth Driz (Administrative Case Nos. 03-01 and 03-02); both were preventively suspended for 90 days. On June 8, 2004 PCSO filed an affidavit-complaint with the Ombudsman, and the respondents were criminally charged with malversation and administratively charged with dishonesty and gross neglect under Book V, E.O. No. 292.
The Office of the Ombudsman rendered its decision on June 10, 2006 finding both respondents guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and ordering dismissal from service (with accessory penalties); Delos Reyes’ partial motion for reconsideration was denied on November 15, 2007. Delos Reyes filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals. On March 1, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s decision and ordered reinstatement of Delos Reyes with full backwages and benefits; its denial of motions for reconsideration was promulgated by resolution dated August 29, 2013.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, and on October 13, 2014 the Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the Ombudsman’s June 10, 2006 decision, and dismissed Delos Reyes from service. Delos Reyes filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated December 22, 2014, and PCSO filed a Manifestation and Motion for Clarification dated February 26, 2015 stating that PCSO had reinstated Delos Reyes and paid him back salaries (computed from November 8, 2008 to November 30, 2013) pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court required comments, received the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s October 13, 2014 Resolution should be granted, i.e., whether the Office of the Ombudsman’s findings were devoid of substantial evidence or otherwise arbitrary.
- Whether respondent Delos Reyes is entitled to the back salaries paid by PCSO covering November 8, 2008 to November 30, 2013 and whether PCSO validly reinstated him and paid those amounts in view of the Ombudsman’s dec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)