Case Summary (A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J)
Factual Background
In 2005, the General Investigation Bureau-A of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) initiated a lifestyle check on Josefino N. Rigor, leading to a complaint against him for alleged unexplained wealth and breaches under Republic Acts No. 3019 and No. 1379. The complaint detailed Rigor's failure to declare numerous real properties, business interests, and vehicles in his SALNs, thereby alleging misconduct defined as Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Falsification of Official Documents.
Initial Findings and Penalties
On July 28, 2006, the OMB found Rigor guilty of Dishonesty, recommending his dismissal from government service. This decision triggered an administrative process that led Rigor to seek reconsideration. His motion was granted in April 2011, reducing the finding to Simple Negligence and imposing a minor fine.
Reversal of Prior Decisions
Subsequently, on July 18, 2011, the OMB reversed its earlier reconsideration and reinstated the gravity of the charges against Rigor, finding him guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification, leading to his dismissal from service once again.
Judicial Review and Appeal Process
Aggrieved by the OMB's final ruling, Rigor filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, claiming that the OMB acted with grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court sided with Rigor, nullifying the OMB's order and reinstating its April 2011 decision of Simple Negligence.
Grounds for Supreme Court Review
The petitioners, Casimiro and Singson, argued that the Court of Appeals misapplied the procedural rules governing administrative cases, failing to recognize that appeals should be filed under Rule 43 rather than through a certiorari under Rule 65. They maintained that the DPWH had a legitimate interest in challenging the administrative findings regarding Rigor.
Supreme Court’s Rationale and Findings
The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, stating that the Court of Appeals had erred in accepting the certiorari petition as a valid means of contesting the OMB’s ruling. It emphasized that administrative cases should follow specific appellate procedures consistent with the administrative discipline framework.
Additionally, the Court acknowledged compelling reasons for allowing the DPWH to intervene and assert its interests in Rigor's case. It outlined that public of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J)
Case Overview
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners Orlando C. Casimiro, the Acting Ombudsman, and Rogelio L. Singson, Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
- The petition challenges the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 4, 2012, which nullified the Order of the Office of the Ombudsman dated July 18, 2011, and reinstated its Order dated April 29, 2011.
- The case centers on allegations of unexplained wealth and violations of Republic Acts No. 3019 and No. 1379 against respondent Josefino N. Rigor, the former Regional Director of DPWH-National Capital Region.
Factual Background
- In 2005, the General Investigation Bureau-A of the Ombudsman (GIB-A-OMB) conducted a lifestyle check on respondent Rigor.
- Following the investigation, a complaint was filed against him for failing to declare various assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).
- The complaint asserted that Rigor committed dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official documents due to discrepancies in his SALNs for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
Allegations Against Rigor
Failure to Declare Properties: Rigor allegedly omitted numerous properties from his SALNs, including:
- Fourteen parcels of land in Tarlac.
- A two-storey commercial/residential building in Manila.
- Luxury vehicles, including a Toyota Rav 4 SUV and a Dodge Ram.
- Business interests in Jetri Construction Corporation and Disneyland Bus Line, Inc.
Irregularities in SALNs: The complai