Case Digest (G.R. No. 227728)
Facts:
In the case of Cecilia Q. Rejas v. Office of the Ombudsman, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Diosdado N. Ditona, the petitioner, Cecilia Q. Rejas, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 against the Decision dated February 15, 2018, of the Special Twenty-Third Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), and a Resolution dated July 6, 2018, which denied her motion for reconsideration. The case arose from a complaint filed on June 13, 2012, by Diosdado Ditona against Rogelio N. QuiAo, the former Municipal Mayor of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, and his brother Antonio N. QuiAo, Jr., regarding nepotism in the appointment of Antonio as Mechanical Shop Foreman. Ditona alleged that these appointments violated rules against nepotism and involved falsification of documents. Cecilia, the Municipal Budget Officer and sister to Rogelio and Antonio, certified the appointments despite knowing that the position's salary grade was fixed under Sangguniang Bayan Or
Case Digest (G.R. No. 227728)
Facts:
- Allegations and Complaints
- Diosdado Ditona filed an Affidavit Complaint on June 13, 2012 before the Ombudsman.
- a. Alleged that former Municipal Mayor Rogelio N. QuiAo approved several appointments of his brother, Antonio N. QuiAo, Jr. as Mechanical Shop Foreman.
- b. Claimed that the appointments violated the nepotism rule.
- Additional allegations included:
- a. The petitioner, Cecilia Q. Rejas—sister to Rogelio and Antonio—was accused of certifying such appointments.
- b. A purported conspiracy among the siblings to misrepresent the true salary grade of the Mechanical Shop Foreman position.
- c. A claim that Antonio falsified his personal data sheet (PDS) to hide his relationship with the appointing authority.
- Nature of the Position and Salary Grade Adjustments
- The position was contractual and non-career, and supposedly excluded from the nepotism rule under Section 79 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
- The alleged irregularity involved:
- a. The Sangguniang Bayan of Manolo Fortich fixing the salary grade of the position at 11 through Ordinance Nos. 2000-151 and 2001-157.
- b. An erroneous upgrade of the position’s salary grade—from 15 upon re-appointment in casual status starting January 2009, subsequently raised to 18 between July and October 2012.
- c. The resulting higher than legally provided salary, purportedly causing damage to the government.
- Proceedings and Decisions at the Ombudsman Level
- The Office of the Ombudsman issued a Decision dated September 7, 2016, finding:
- a. The charge of nepotism against Rogelio unmeritorious.
- b. The falsification charge against Antonio dismissed.
- c. Petitioner Cecilia Q. Rejas (and Rogelio) found administratively liable for grave misconduct.
- The sanctions imposed included:
- a. Dismissal from service.
- b. Forfeiture of retirement benefits.
- c. Cancellation of eligibility, bar from civil service examinations, and perpetual disqualification from any public office.
- d. Provision for conversion of the dismissal penalty into a fine if dismissal could not be enforced.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by an Ombudsman Order dated October 28, 2016.
- Proceedings and Decisions at the Court of Appeals (CA)
- Petitioner and Rogelio advanced appeals under different Rules of Court:
- a. Two petitions were filed, consolidated by the CA.
- b. The petition under Rule 65 was dismissed as superfluous.
- CA Findings and Rulings:
- a. The CA upheld the finding of grave misconduct, based on the unauthorized salary grade upgrade.
- b. It held that the petitioner, as Municipal Budget Officer, should have been aware of the budget allocations for the appointive position.
- c. However, the CA noted that subsequent re-elections of Rogelio effectively operated as a condonation regarding his offenses.
- The dispositive portion of the CA Decision dated February 15, 2018:
- a. Partly granted the Petition for Review while reversing the Ombudsman's finding against petitioner.
- b. Affirmed all other dispositions except the finding of administrative liability for petitioner and Rogelio concerning grave misconduct.
- Petition before the Supreme Court
- Petitioner Cecilia Q. Rejas filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
- a. The main contention was that the CA erred in its finding of grave misconduct.
- b. She argued that her role was limited to certifying the existence of appropriations and that she did not participate in the reclassification of Antonio’s position.
- Additional contentions and counterarguments:
- a. Petitioner maintained that the salary adjustments corresponded to actual work performed by Antonio.
- b. The Ombudsman and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) countered, emphasizing that as Municipal Budget Officer, she should have verified the legality of the salary grade adjustments.
- c. The allegation centered on her signature on the Plantilla of Casual Appointments that reflected the disputed salary grade upgrade.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Ombudsman’s finding of grave misconduct against petitioner Cecilia Q. Rejas.
- Focus on whether her act of certifying the appropriations, as reflected in the Plantilla of Casual Appointments, constituted misconduct.
- Whether the petitioner's duties as Municipal Budget Officer extended to ensuring compliance with the proper salary grade and reclassification procedures.
- The admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of administrative liability for grave misconduct in relation to the salary grade adjustments.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)