CASE 2019-0012: DOMINGO CREBELLO VS OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, JR. (G.R. NO. 232325, 10 APRIL 2019, BERSAMIN, C.J.) (SUBJECT/S: CONDONATION AS DEFENSE) (BRIEF TITLE: CREBELLO VS OMBUDSMAN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the resolution promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148977 on January 16, 2017; DECLARES and FINDS respondent TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, JR. guilty of NEPOTISM (in violation of Section 59, in relation to Section 67, of Presidential Decree No. 807, also known as the Administrative Code of 1987, and Section 49, in relation to Section 55, of Executive Order No. 292, also known as the Civil Service Law); IMPOSES on respondent TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, JR. the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations; and ORDERS him to pay the costs of suit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER CREBELLO CHARGED MAYOR CAPOQUIAN OF NEPOTISM FOR APPOINTING THE LATTER’S  WIFE AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THEIR WATER DISTRICT. OMB DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE REELECTION OF MAYOR CAPOQUIAN ABSOLVED HIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY. CREBELLO APPEALED CASE TO CA WHICH DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED UNDER RULE 43 NOT UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

 

WAS  CA CORRECT?

 

NO. THE DECISION OF THE OMBUDSMAN MAY BE REVIEWED IF THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. THE RESOLUTION OF THE OMB BEING FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE COULD BE CHALLENGED THROUGH CERTIORARI. SAID THE SC;

 

“……. Decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies which are declared by law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. When such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings. Thus, the decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.[12] (Emphasis supplied)

 

In view of the foregoing, we find and hold to be correct the petitioner’s stance that the resolution absolving respondent Capoquian, Jr. of the charge of nepotism, being final and unappealable, could still be challenged or assailed through the petition for certiorari. Plainly enough, the CA wrongly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy on the notion that the decisions of the OMB in administrative cases should be assailed before the CA by petition for review under Rule 43.”

 

WAS OMB CORRECT IN ABSOLVING CAPOQUIAN OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY BECAUSE OF CONDONATION SINCE THE ABANDONMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION TOOK EFFECT 12 APRIL 2016 WHILE ITS RESOLUTION WAS ISSUED 31  MARCH 2016?

 

THE OMB WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE CAPOQUIAN DID NOT INVOKE THE DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION AS A DEFENSE. THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DOCTRINE REQUIRES THAT RESPONDENT MUST INVOKE IT IN HIS DEFENSE. CAPOQUIAN FAILED TO SUBMIT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT AND VERIFIED POSITION PAPER. SAID THE SC:

 

“We sustain the insistence of the OMB. The ruling promulgated in Morales v. Court of Appeals on the abandonment of the doctrine of condonation had, indeed, become final only on April 12, 2016, and thus the abandonment should be reckoned from April 12, 2016. Under the circumstances, the decision of the OMB dated March 31, 2016 absolving respondent Capoquian, Jr. by reason of the application of the doctrine of condonation might have been justified.

 

However, the petitioner has assailed the application of the doctrine of condonation precisely because respondent Capoquian, Jr. had not invoked the doctrine of condonation as a defense. This omission on his part appears to be confirmed by the records, which indicated that he did not submit or file his counter-affidavit and verified position paper despite being required to do so. Worse, the omission to submit or file, according to the petitioner, amounted to his waiver of his right to controvert the charge of nepotism brought against him.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SC-2019-0012-SC CASE G.R. NO 232325-10 APR 2019-DOMINGO CREBELLO VS OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN ET AL 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.