Case Digest (G.R. No. 172334)
Facts:
Dr. Zenaida P. Pia v. Hon. Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 172334, June 05, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dr. Zenaida P. Pia was a professor at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP). In December 2001 respondent Dr. Roman R. Dannug, in his capacity as Dean of the College of Economics, Finance and Politics (CEFP), filed a complaint (docketed OMB‑C‑A‑02‑0022‑A) alleging that Pia directly sold to her students a bound compilation titled Organization Development Research Papers at P120 per copy, in violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers and PUP memoranda prohibiting faculty from selling books directly to their students; the complaint included a list of students alleged to have been made to buy the compilation.
After conference and memoranda, the Office of the Ombudsman submitted the matter for resolution. In its Decision dated September 27, 2002 (signed by Graft Investigation Officer Joselito P. Fangon and approved by respondent Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., then Acting Ombudsman), the Office found Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed suspension for six months without pay (citing Section 10, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 in relation to Section 25 of R.A. No. 6770). Pia’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Order dated November 20, 2002.
Pia filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 20, 2003 after filing a motion for extension of time on February 24, 2003; before the CA resolved the petition, PUP officials implemented the Ombudsman’s suspension order. The CA, in a Decision dated June 29, 2005 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 75648), affirmed the Ombudsman’s finding and held that Pia’s CA petition was untimely. The CA denied reconsideration by Resolution dated March 28, 2006. Pia then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner Pia’s petition with the Court of Appeals timely filed?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding that Pia committed Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service?
- Was the implementation of the Ombudsman’s suspension order by PUP officials while Pia’s period to appeal ha...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)