Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83757:58152&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:52:31+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 208976, October 13, 2014 - THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR. Respondent.
THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR. Respondent.
This resolves the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision1 dated March 1, 2013, which set aside the Office of the Ombudsman's decision and order in OMB-C-A-04-0309-G finding respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr. guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty,2 and order dated August 29, 2013, which denied petitioner Office of the Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents, Leovigildo T. Delos Reyes, Jr. and Elizabeth G. Driz, are found guilty for Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty, and are thus imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, including all the accessory penalties of, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for reemployment in the government service.
The complaint for Dishonesty filed against the respondent is however Dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
The Honorable Rosario Uriarte, Chairman and General Manager of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, is hereby directed to implement immediately this decision pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006.
Delos Reyes' partial motion for reconsideration was denied on November 15, 2007.19 He then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 117683 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed June 10, 2006 Decision and November 15, 2007 Order, finding petitioner Leovigildo T. Delos Reyes, Jr. guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) is ordered to REINSTATE petitioner as Chief of the Marketing and On-Line Division, Central Operations Department (COD) of the PCSO, with full backwages, retirement benefits and emoluments, and without diminution as to his seniority rights from the time of his dismissal from office until his reinstatement.
On April 21, 2014, we noted Delos Reyes' comment dated March 10, 2014 and required the Office of the Ombudsman to submit its reply.29 However, it submitted a manifestation and motion instead.
The issues to be resolved in this case are: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court despite availability of the remedy under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; and (2) 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.
Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the Office of the Ombudsman should be taken to the CA by way of petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Rule 43 which prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Ombudsman, was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. Thus, certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The Court of Appeals, thus, erred in granting respondent's petition for certiorari .
On the issue of the Office of the Ombudsman's gross misapprehension of facts in finding that substantial evidence exists for the administrative charge of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, we hold that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing and setting aside the Office of the Ombudsman's findings and decision.
The records reveal that petitioner did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering its assailed decision in OMB-C-A-04-0309-G.
. . . both the respondents [have] the authority to receive daily remittances from the tellers. But all must be handed to respondent Delos Reyes, Jr. for the reconciliation of the daily reports and the proceeds remitted. . . . [Driz] cannot [deposit the proceeds] without the authority and/or approval of her chief and supervisor, respondent Delos Reyes, Jr.
.... As far as Delos Reyes, Jr. is [concerned], he not only has the obligation of monitoring, checking and reconciling lotto sales proceeds with the reports of the tellers, but is likewise responsible for seeing to the prompt deposits of these proceeds, he being the chief of the Marketing and On-Line Division and the supervisor of the remitting tellers of the Main Office. . . .
First, the Ombudsman investigation revealed that the Commission on Audit, in a Memorandum dated June 13, 2011, submitted a consolidated report recommending that the proceeds of the lotto sales for June 1 to 4, 2001 . . . be deposited promptly in a bank to avoid any untoward incident. It was respondent's failure to heed COA's advice to promptly deposit the amount found in the vault that caused the loss of the subject amount of P387,879.00.
Second, the said vault in which the lost money was kept is subject to the control and custody of the respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr.
Third, based on his Performance and Evaluation System, it is the duty of respondent Delos Reyes to monitor, check, and reconcile reports and daily remittances of lotto sales submitted by the tellers assigned at the Main Office (where the subject unremitted collections originated) and San Marcelino Outlets. Clearly, he is accountable for the proceeds of the lotto sales in said outlets.
In this case, we find respondent guilty of both grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
There is substantial evidence supporting the Office of the Ombudsman's finding that respondent intentionally failed to act on his duty with a conscious indifference to the consequences. The alleged lack of specific internal control procedures does not sway this court.
It is undisputed that as Chief of the Marketing and On-Line Division of the COD, respondent was accountable for the vault and the lotto proceeds placed inside it. As the Division Chief, respondent had the duty to monitor, check, and reconcile the reports of the daily lotto proceeds. It is true that it was not his job to personally deposit the lotto proceeds with the bank, as this fell under Driz's responsibility. However, it was incumbent upon respondent to ensure that the lotto proceeds deposited in the bank correspond to the reports submitted to him and that the proceeds are deposited promptly.
Despite such duty, respondent willfully ignored the auditor's recommendations for prompt deposit of the lotto sales proceeds. He disregarded his duty of overseeing the deposit of the proceeds and wholly relied on Driz's representations. Respondent's act constitutes gross neglect of duty.
Similarly, records show that petitioner adduced substantial evidence to show how respondent flagrantly disregarded the rules and acted with a willful intent to violate the law, thus, amounting to grave misconduct. The Office of the Ombudsman's investigation revealed that all of the daily lotto remittances went through the hands of respondent. It also found that respondent's authorization and/or approval was required before Driz could deposit the daily lotto proceeds. Driz's alleged manipulation of the bank deposit slips and lapping of funds could not have been missed by respondent had he performed his duties. Respondent could have easily discovered the lapping of funds if he had checked the deposit records with Driz vis-a-vis the reports and lotto sales proceeds he had allegedly reconciled upon turn-over of the tellers to him.
In sum, the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to show how the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the contested decision and order despite the presence of substantial evidence.
WHEREFORE, 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, which includes the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for re-employment in the government service.
1 The decision was penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon of the Sixth Division.
2Rollo, pp. 51-67 and 68-72. The decision was dated June 10, 2006, and the order was dated November 15, 2007.
26Id. at 48-50. PCSO assailed the award of full backwages to respondent in view of its good faith in filing the case against respondent.
54See Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013, 709 SCRA 681 [Per J. Perez, En Bane]. This case involved a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Office of the Ombudsman's decision in an administrative case exonerating respondents.
55 Id. at 694. See Ferrer v. Office of the Ombudsman, 583 Phil. 50, 63-64 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
56Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013, 709 SCRA 681, 694 [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
57See Nava v. National Bureau of Investigation, Regional Office No. XI, Davao City, 495 Phil. 354 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]; Kuizon v. Desierio, 406 Phil. 611 (2001) [Per J. Puno, First Division]; Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), 430 Phil. 101 (2002) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]; Republic v. Canastillo, 551 Phil. 987 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].
58 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 65, sec. 1.
59 554 Phil. 548 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
62 Rep. Act No. 6770 (1989), otherwise known as "An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the Office of the Ombudsman, and for Other Purposes," sec. 27; See Tolentino v. Loyola, G.R. No. 153809, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 420, 432-434 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
63 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 5. See Orbase v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 175115, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 111, 126 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]. See Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013, 709 SCRA 681, 694 [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
65Valera v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., 570 Phil. 368, 385 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, First Division].
66Office of the Ombudsman v. De Leon, G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 27, 38 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
69Orbase v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 175 115, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 111, 126 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
70 259 Phil. 794 (1989) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
71 576 Phil. 345 (2008) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
72 Id. at 354-355, citing Alfonso v. Office of the President, 548 Phil. 615 [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
74 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), Rule 10, sec. 46(A)(2).

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