Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81847:172334&catid=1571&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:37:45+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 172334, June 05, 2013 - DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA, Petitioner, v. HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, FORMERLY ACTING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, DR. OFELIA M. CARAGUE, FORMERLY PUP PRESIDENT, DR. ROMAN R. DANNUG, FORMERLY DEAN, COLLEGE OF ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND POLITICS (CEFP), NOW ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CEFP POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (PUP), STA. MESA, MANILA, Respondents.
DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA, Petitioner, v. HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, FORMERLY ACTING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, DR. OFELIA M. CARAGUE, FORMERLY PUP PRESIDENT, DR. ROMAN R. DANNUG, FORMERLY DEAN, COLLEGE OF ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND POLITICS (CEFP), NOW ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CEFP POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (PUP), STA. MESA, MANILA, Respondents.
the CA Resolution3 dated March 28, 2006, which denied Pia’s motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated June 29, 2005.
Pia’s act was also claimed to be violative of several memoranda issued by PUP officials against the sale of books, articles or any items by any faculty member directly to their students.6 Furthermore, the books were believed to be overpriced at P120.00 each, being mere bound machine copies of reports and research papers that were submitted by Pia’s former students. Dannug attached to his complaint a list of the students who were allegedly made to buy copies of the book.
For her defense, Pia argued that her students were not forced to buy copies of the book, even submitting a certification to that effect from students who had bought from her. Pia also claimed that the list of students attached to the complaint was a mere attendance sheet of Dannug’s students in a research writing class, and not as Dannug claimed it to be.
After preliminary conference and the parties’ submission of their respective memoranda, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
It is of no moment that the students were not forced to buy the book. It stands to reason that the respondent [Pia], as teacher, exercises moral ascendancy over her students, such that an offer made by her directed to the students, to buy something from her, operates as a compulsion which the students [cannot] easily avoid. x x x.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent ZENAIDA P. PIA, GUILTY of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, for which the PENALTY of SUSPENSION FOR SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY is hereby imposed, pursuant to Section 10, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, in relation to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6770.
The Honorable, the University President, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila, is hereby furnished a copy of this Decision for its implementation in accordance with law, with the directive to inform this Office of the action taken thereon.
Pia’s motion for reconsideration was denied via an Order10 dated November 20, 2002.
Feeling aggrieved, Pia filed a petition for review with the CA. Even before she could have filed the petition, respondents Dannug and Dr. Ofelia M. Carague (Carague), former PUP President, implemented the penalty of suspension that was imposed by the Office of Ombudsman.
On June 29, 2005, the CA rendered its Decision11 affirming the rulings of the Office of the Ombudsman. For the appellate court, the Office of the Ombudsman has sufficiently established by substantial evidence the culpability of Pia. In addition, the CA explained that the appeal was dismissible on the ground that the Office of the Ombudsman’s decision and order had already attained finality when the petition for review was filed with it by Pia on March 20, 2003.
Pia’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for review.
(3) Whether or not Dannug and Carague erred in implementing the Office of the Ombudsman’s decision during the time that Pia’s period to appeal had not yet expired.
The petitioner did not controvert the contention that she received the denial of her motion for reconsideration of the questioned decision on February 18, 2003. Under Sec. 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 14-A, Series of 2000, which prescribes the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, it allows the aggrieved party to appeal the decision of the said Office (in administrative disciplinary cases to the Court of Appeals) within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration. Thus, in accordance with the said procedural rule, the petitioner has only until February 28, 2003 to file her petition for review with this Court as enunciated in the Fabian case.
We reverse such finding of the CA.
Consistent with the foregoing jurisprudence, Pia claims that her petition for review was timely filed, as her motion for extension of time to file the petition with the CA was filed on February 24, 2003; and she asked through the said motion for an additional period of 15 days from the expiration of her original reglementary period of 15 days within which to file a petition for review. The CA, however, adopted the view of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counsel for respondent Overall Deputy Ombudsman, that the petition with the CA should have been filed within ten days from Pia’s notice of her motion for reconsideration’s denial, as required under the Office of the Ombudsman’s Administrative Order No. 14-A, Series of 2000.
The Court agrees with Pia. As the Court explained in Dimagiba v. Espartero,15 “[c]onsidering that the Fabian ruling stated that Rule 43 of the Rules of Court should be the proper mode of appeal from an Ombudsman decision in administrative cases, and Section 4 of Rule 43 provides for a reglementary period of 15 days from receipt of the order appealed from, a motion for extension of time to file petition within the 15-day period is considered timely filed.”16 Between the 10-day period under R.A. No. 6770 and Section 4 of Rule 43, the latter shall apply.
In the present case, Pia filed with the CA her motion for extension of time within the allowed 15-day period. She received a copy of the Ombudsman’s order on February 18, 2003, then filed her motion on February 24, 2003. Equally important is the fact that her petition for review was filed within the period asked for in her motion, which was 15 days from the expiration of the original period ending March 5, 2003, or until March 20, 2003.
The petition, however, fails on the merits.
Both the Office of the Ombudsman and the CA have sufficiently identified Pia’s act that constitutes Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Although Pia questions the weight that should be accorded to the list of students attached to the complaint of Dannug, it is significant that she readily admitted having directly sold copies of the book/compilation “Organization Development Research Papers” to her students, an act that is proscribed among PUP faculty members, by the submission of a certification from her students claiming that they were not forced to buy copies of the book.
In asking for the complaint’s dismissal, Pia argues that she was not covered by the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers which was cited by the Office of the Ombudsman to support the decision rendered against her. She contends that the Code only applies to teachers in educational institutions at the pre-school, primary, elementary and secondary levels, but not to professors in the tertiary level.
In affirming the finding that the act imputed upon Pia amounts to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, we take into account her moral ascendancy over her students. Dannug’s complaint also indicates that the book/compilation was overpriced, and that the students’ refusal to buy the book/compilation could result in their failure in the subject. In addition, Pia was found to have directly violated memoranda issued by officials of PUP. It then appeared that she allowed her personal interests to adversely affect the proper performance of her official functions, to the disadvantage of her students and in patent violation of a policy in the state-run university where she was teaching.
The certification that was allegedly executed by Pia’s students in her defense deserves scant consideration: first, her moral ascendancy as a professor could have easily allowed her to obtain such certification, regardless of the circumstances that attended her students’ purchase of the book/compilation; and second, the certification in fact confirms that she directly sold the book/compilation to her students, in violation of the prohibition imposed by the PUP officials.
Considering then that the acts alleged and proved to have been committed by Pia amounts to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and that she has been afforded a full opportunity to present her side and refute the act imputed against her, the Court finds no cogent reason to nullify the ruling made by the CA on Pia’s guilt.
The Court also finds no irregularity in Dannug and Carague’s implementation of the rulings of the Office of the Ombudsman, notwithstanding the fact that Pia then still had the remedy of an appeal before the CA.
To support her stance that the Office of the Ombudsman’s order of suspension should not have been executed while her period to appeal has not yet lapsed, Pia cites the cases of Tuzon v. CA,27Lapid v. CA28 and Lopez v. CA.29 Given, however, subsequent jurisprudence on the matter, Pia’s argument is misplaced.
SEC. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions.-(1) All provisionary orders at the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory.
(2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant. The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three (3) days from filing: Provided, That only motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
“Section 7. Finality and execution of decision.-Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration.
Clearly from the foregoing, Pia’s complaint against Carague and Dannug’s immediate implementation of the penalty of suspension imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman deserves no merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated June 29, 2005 and Resolution dated March 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75648 are AFFIRMED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.