Title
Ampongan vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 248037
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2021
Vice-Mayor appointed outsider as SP Secretary without proper PSB screening; SC found him guilty of simple misconduct, not grave misconduct or dishonesty, imposing a 3-month suspension.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91029)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework for this case includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Civil Service Rules regarding administrative cases, particularly those related to grave misconduct and dishonesty.

Background of the Case

In June 2014, a vacancy for the Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod arose after the retirement of Dandy V. Fraginal. Supervising Administrative Officer Avelino Pedro Vargas Jr. was designated as Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Secretary on June 30, 2014. A resolution was passed on September 15, 2014, suggesting that the next-in-rank employee would fill the vacant position. Despite this, Ampongan appointed Edsel Dimaiwat to the position on November 3, 2014, falsely certifying that Dimaiwat was qualified by the Personnel Selection Board (PSB).

Findings of the Ombudsman

On January 5, 2017, the Ombudsman found Ampongan liable for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty due to his violation of Civil Service Rules. The Ombudsman ruled that he appointed Dimaiwat without a proper screening process and knowingly certified false information on the appointment form.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling in a decision dated January 22, 2019, reiterating that Ampongan’s actions constituted grave misconduct as he failed to adhere to the proper process while appointing Dimaiwat. Despite Ampongan’s claims of good faith, the CA noted a lack of efforts to comply with established rules.

Arguments by the Petitioner

Ampongan contended that he acted with good faith and argued that the respondents' absence from the scheduled PSB meeting hindered compliance with the appointment rules. He also asserted that the resolution issued by the SP members was erroneous and claimed that he did not distort the truth regarding the PSB’s evaluation process.

Arguments by the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman maintained that substantial evidence supported Ampongan's liability for grave misconduct and dishonesty, emphasizing Ampongan’s favoritism toward Dimaiwat and the willful misrepresentation in the appointment process.

Ruling of the Court

The Court ruled in favor of Ampongan regarding the absence of willful intent to violate the law, concluding that he did not intentionally deceive the Civil Servic

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.