Ombudsman v. Delos Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr. was the Division Chief of the Marketing and On-Line Division of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). In this capacity, he was responsible for managing on-line lottery terminals and overseeing the collection and deposit of lottery proceeds. An audit revealed unremitted collections totaling P387,879.00 from May 21, 2001, to June 3, 2001. Investigations indicated a pattern of delayed submission of sales reports, partial remittances to cover previous collections, and the unremitted amounts being attributed to subordinates, including Assistant Division Chief Elizabeth Driz. The PCSO Legal Department recommended charges against Delos Reyes and Driz for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty, finding that lottery proceeds were turned over to Delos Reyes, who was responsible for their safekeeping and subsequent deposit. Procedural History: Formal charges were filed against Delos Reyes and Driz in May 2003. Subsequently, PCSO filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman in June 2004, leading to criminal and administrative charges. On June 10, 2006, the Office of the Ombudsman found Delos Reyes and Driz guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, ordering their dismissal from service. Delos Reyes' motion for reconsideration was denied on November 15, 2007. He then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals. On March 1, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman's decision, ordering Delos Reyes' reinstatement. The Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on August 29, 2013. The Petition: The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of Delos Reyes' petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43, and the certiorari petition was filed out of time. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Office of the Ombudsman committed a gross misapprehension of facts, asserting that substantial evidence supported the findings of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. The Ombudsman maintains that Delos Reyes, as Division Chief, had the duty to monitor, reconcile, and ensure the prompt deposit of lottery proceeds, and his failure to heed audit recommendations and his reliance on subordinates constituted a flagrant disregard of his duties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court despite the availability of the remedy under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Office of the Ombudsman committed gross misapprehension of facts in finding that substantial evidence exists for the administrative charge of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' decision dated March 1, 2013, and resolution dated August 29, 2013, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Office of the Ombudsman's decision dated June 10, 2006, and order dated November 15, 2007, are REINSTATED. Respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr. is DISMISSED from service, including all accessory penalties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Issue 1): The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It is settled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. In this case, a petition for review under Rule 43 was available, and the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary period for appeal, thus it should have been dismissed by the CA. The CA's liberal application of rules could not justify the flagrant disregard of procedural rules. On the alleged gross misapprehension of facts by the Office of the Ombudsman (Issue 2): The Court found that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing the Office of the Ombudsman's findings. Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Ombudsman's investigation revealed that Delos Reyes, as Chief of the Marketing and On-Line Division, had the authority to receive daily remittances from tellers, and all must be handed to him for reconciliation of daily reports and proceeds. He had the obligation of monitoring, checking, and reconciling lotto sales proceeds and was responsible for seeing to the prompt deposits of these proceeds. The COA's recommendation for prompt deposit was ignored, and the vault containing the lost money was under Delos Reyes' control. While Driz had the duty to deposit, her defense was that it required Delos Reyes' authority, making his connivance improbable to have been missed had he performed his duties. The Court reiterated that the Arias doctrine, allowing heads of offices to rely on subordinates, is inapplicable when facts point to an irregularity and the officer fails to take steps to rectify it, even tolerating it. Therefore, Delos Reyes was guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty against Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr., as substantial evidence supported the Ombudsman's conclusion, and the CA failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion. The proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's decision in administrative disciplinary cases is a petition for review under Rule 43, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which was improperly filed and out of time.