Case Digest (G.R. No. 233892)
Facts:
SPO4 Ma. Linda A. Padojinog v. Field Investigation Office–Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 233892, October 13, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner SPO4 Ma. Linda A. Padojinog (petitioner) was a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) National Headquarters–Bids and Awards Committee Technical Working Group (NHQ‑BAC TWG) on Transportation and of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC) team that inspected two Robinson R44 Raven I Light Police Operational Helicopters (LPOHs) delivered by Manila Aerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA) on September 24, 2009. The procurement concerned three helicopter units contracted at P104,985,000.00; two units were later found to be secondhand and formerly owned by the First Gentleman. Petitioner was designated to the TWG on January 5, 2009 and attended the June 15, 2009 negotiations; she signed WTCD Report No. T‑2009‑04A that recorded the helicopters’ technical specifications and noted, inter alia, that they were "Not airconditioned" and that endurance data was "No available data."The Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO) recommended criminal and administrative charges against petitioner, alleging she signed the WTCD report despite being able to discern from flight history and engine logs that the helicopters were pre‑owned, and that she was negligent or deliberately ignored signs of secondhand status. In its Joint Resolution dated May 30, 2012 and subsequent Order of February 15, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner administratively guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, imposing dismissal from the service with accessory penalties; criminal charges were likewise recommended.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision of October 25, 2016, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman, finding substantial evidence of dishonesty and that petitioner’s use of qualified language on an official report to make the helicopters appear brand new constituted an intent to defraud; the CA denied reconsideration in its August 2, 2017 Resolutio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may this Court review the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals in this administrative case, or is review limited to questions of law?
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)