Case Digest (G.R. No. 211450)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Loving F. Fetalvero, Jr., G.R. No. 211450, July 23, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arose from the reevaluation and readjustment of the performance rating of Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. (Lockheed), the incumbent security services contractor for the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Port District Office–Luzon, which affected Lockheed’s eligibility to bid for a subsequent contract. Port Police Department officers initially rated Lockheed “fair” (78.30), which would disqualify it from accreditation. Assistant General Manager for Operations Benjamin Cecilio reviewed the rating, referred it for comment, and eventually issued a Certificate of Final Rating readjusting Lockheed’s score to 83.97 (“satisfactory”), thereby making Lockheed eligible to bid.
Port District Office–Luzon Security Staff Officer Captain Geronimo R. Grospe and Port District Manager Hector Miole recommended reconsideration; Superintendent Loving F. Fetalvero, Jr. (respondent) was directed by Cecilio to review their recommendations against the guidelines and to draft a reply. Port Management Office–Puerto Princesa Station Commander Aquilino Peregrina also forwarded reevaluation inputs. Port Police Division Manager Maximo Aguirre filed a complaint-affidavit charging Cecilio, Fetalvero, Miole, Grospe, and Peregrina with grave misconduct and dishonesty, alleging the readjustment was irregular, unsupported by computations, and effected by persons without personal knowledge of Lockheed’s performance.
Administrative prosecuting officers produced conflicting resolutions: Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Moreno Generoso initially dismissed the complaint (May 21, 2003), but Assistant Special Prosecutor III Roberto Agagon issued a Review Resolution (Nov. 25, 2004) recommending dismissal from service for the charged officers. Subsequent internal reviews produced a reversal of Agagon’s Review Resolution by Officer II Joselito Fangon (June 7, 2006), which granted motions for reconsideration; another reviewer, Officer I Russel C. Labor, recommended affirming the Review Resolution (Oct. 20, 2006). The recommendations of the Reviewing Officers were approved by different Deputy Ombudsmen at different times.
Respondent Fetalvero appealed the Office of the Ombudsman’s adverse Review Resolution(s) to the Court of Appeals. In CA-G.R. SP No. 119495, the Court of Appeals, in an April 15, 2013 Decision, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s Review Resolution dated November 25, 2004 and Review Order dated October 20, 2006, and dismissed Administrative Case No. OMB-C-A-02-0023-A agains...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether there is substantial evidence to hold respondent Loving F. Fetalvero, Jr. administratively liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the readjustment of Lockheed’s performa...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)