Case Summary (G.R. No. 203217)
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed on June 27, 2005, by the General Investigation Bureau A (GIB-A) against several personnel of the VIB, including Diaz and Rodrigo R. Reyes, for dishonesty and misconduct pursuant to Republic Act No. 3019, the Revised Penal Code, and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS). Allegations included the misuse of gasoline intended for government vehicles, particularly after the decommissioning of said vehicles.
Allegations and Evidence
The core allegation involved the withdrawal of gasoline for vehicles that had been declared unserviceable. Specifically, it was reported that from January 1999 to December 2001, a substantial quantity of gasoline was withdrawn for a Toyota Land Cruiser (plate no. SCB-995) that had been deemed unserviceable as early as August 31, 1999. Moreover, Diaz was found to have withdrawn gasoline for a personal vehicle during a time when he was already receiving transportation allowances.
The Ombudsman's Ruling
The Office of the Ombudsman, in its decision dated June 26, 2007, found both Diaz and Reyes guilty of dishonesty and imposed a penalty of dismissal from government service. The Ombudsman emphasized the substantial evidence provided by the Gasoline Fuel Supplies Ledger Cards, which documented the unauthorized gasoline withdrawals against the claimed usage of the vehicles.
Court of Appeals' Findings
On September 15, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling, underscoring that its conclusions were grounded in substantial and credible evidence. The CA held that the records showed clear misuse of government resources, rejecting Diaz's claims regarding the trustworthiness of the ledger cards, noting they constituted prima facie evidence of the facts contained within.
Petition for Review
Diaz filed a petition for review, arguing that the findings lacked substantial evidence and that the penalties were excessively harsh given his loyal service of 22 years. He maintained that his actions were mischaracterized and that the circumstances should be viewed more leniently given his previously unblemished record.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, reaffirming that it generally respects the factual findings of the Ombudsman, especially when substantial evidence supports their conclusions. The Court pointed out that Diaz’s arguments
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 203217)
Case Background
- This case involves a petition for review filed by Jose L. Diaz against the Office of the Ombudsman, concerning the decision that affirmed his dismissal from civil service for dishonesty.
- The petition was prompted by decisions from the Court of Appeals dated September 15, 2011, and a resolution on August 22, 2012, which upheld the Office of the Ombudsman's ruling.
Facts of the Case
- On June 27, 2005, the General Investigation Bureau A (GIB-A) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against personnel of the Veterinary Inspection Board (VIB) of Manila, including Diaz, for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and for grave misconduct.
- The complaint stemmed from allegations that Diaz improperly withdrew gasoline for vehicles that had been declared unserviceable.
- Specifically, on November 18, 1998, Diaz received a Jeep, and by December 1998, its engine was replaced. The original engine was decommissioned and the vehicle was later declared unserviceable in 1999.
- Despite this, records indicated significant gasoline withdrawals for the Jeep and other vehicles tied to Diaz, including for his personal vehicle.
- Diaz denied allegations of wrongdoing, asserting that the vehicles were still operational and that he was unaware of gasoline withdrawals for his personal vehicle.
Ruling of the Ombudsman
- The Office of the Omb