Case Digest (G.R. No. 170512)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Antonio T. Reyes, G.R. No. 170512, October 05, 2011, First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 4, 2005 and Resolution dated October 27, 2005 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 70571, which had reversed and set aside the Office of the Ombudsman‑Mindanao Decision dated September 24, 2001 and Joint Order dated February 15, 2002 in OMB‑MIN‑ADM‑01‑170.The complaint began with an affidavit executed by Jaime B. Acero alleging that on January 10, 2001 he was induced to pay an extra amount (P1,000 tendered; only P180 officially receipted) to secure issuance of a driver’s license despite failing the required exam, and that Angelito Penaloza (Clerk III) and Antonio T. Reyes (Transportation Regulation Officer II/Acting Officer‑in‑Charge, later Head of LTO Mambajao) were involved. Acero’s affidavit and the official receipt for P180 were forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman‑Mindanao; the Ombudsman directed the respondents to submit counter‑affidavits.
Penaloza’s counter‑affidavit admitted handling Acero’s paperwork and receiving money, but implicated Reyes as ordering the adjustment of scores and as beneficiary of the undisclosed extra payment; Penaloza submitted corroborating affidavits of Rey P. Amper (a former LTO employee) and Rickie Valdehueza (an applicant who allegedly paid similar additional fees). Reyes denied involvement, asserted Penaloza pocketed the unreceipted amount, and adopted a counter‑affidavit filed in another Ombudsman docket involving the same incident.
The Ombudsman ordered a preliminary conference; the parties failed to appear and the case was deemed submitted. On September 24, 2001 the Ombudsman found Reyes guilty of grave misconduct (dismissal) and Penaloza guilty of simple misconduct (six‑month suspension). Motions for reconsideration by both respondents were denied in a Joint Order dated February 15, 2002. Reyes filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 70571). The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated July 4, 2005, reversed the Ombudsman’s Decision, ex...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Antonio T. Reyes denied due process in the administrative proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman by not being furnished copies of inculpatory affidavits prior to the rendition of the Ombudsman’s Decision?
- Was the finding of grave misconduct against Reyes supported by substantial evidence such that the Court of Appeals erred in rever...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)