FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241725. December 3, 2018.]
RICARDO V. CASTRO, SR., petitioner, vs.FILEMON M. GALSIM AND EDDIE C. RODRIGUEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241725 — Ricardo V. Castro, Sr., Petitioner, v. Filemon M. Galsim and Eddie C. Rodriguez, Respondents.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) failure of the affiant in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition to indicate his identification details, which he exhibited before notary public Atty. Michael M. Racelis; (2) raising a factual issue; and (3) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in granting respondents' Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 155145.
The instant Petition seeks to have this Court review the evidence presented before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) concerning respondents' alleged date of receipt of the OMB's October 16, 2015 Decision. Time and again, this Court has explained that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual findings of the CA bind this Court. 1 This rule especially holds true here since the OMB and the CA are unanimous in their factual findings and conclusions as to the timeliness of the filing of respondents' motion for reconsideration before the OMB. In any case, this Court reiterates the OMB's procedure in releasing decisions to the parties themselves, as stated in Rule III, Sections 6 and 8 of Administrative Order No. 07 or the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, to wit: DETACa
Section 6. Rendition of decision. — Not later than thirty (30) days after the case is declared submitted for resolution, the Hearing Officer shall submit a proposed decision containing his findings and recommendation for the approval of the Ombudsman. Said proposed decision shall be reviewed by the Directors, Assistant Ombudsmen and Deputy Ombudsmen concerned. With respect to low ranking public officials, the Deputy Ombudsman concerned shall be the approving authority. Upon approval, copies thereof shall be served upon the parties and the head of the office or agency of which the respondent is an official or employee for his information and compliance with the appropriate directive contained therein.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 8. Motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation: Grounds — Whenever allowable, a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation may only be entertained if filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision or order by the party on the basis of any of the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx (underscoring supplied.)
Anent the issue of respondents' resort to single-source procurement, this Court agrees with the CA that petitioner failed to show how respondents could be held administratively liable for grave misconduct. To hold someone liable for grave misconduct, "the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest." 2 Here, the CA correctly weighed the evidence again and pointed out the discrepancies in the OMB's decision, thus, reversing the penalty of dismissal from the service. In refuting the claim that respondents acted with "manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross negligence," 3 the CA held:
[Petitioner's] conclusions are bereft of any legal or factual support, if not non sequitur. As correctly pointed out by [respondents], R-4 Fuel is a sole proprietorship registered under the name of Lydia Catibog Rodriguez, the mother of [respondent] Rodriguez. Being a sole proprietorship, only the sole owner has the exclusive power of supervision and control over its business. Hence, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, [respondent] Rodriguez has no "direct" pecuniary interest over the questioned transactions.
Neither does the fact that [respondent] Rodriguez is the son of the owner of R-4 Fuel establish an "indirect" pecuniary interest on the part of [respondent] Rodriguez. As correctly argued in the instant petition, [respondent] Rodriguez's interest in the properties of his mother is merely inchoate. Moreover, [respondent] Rodriguez could only be considered as heir of his mother if the latter predeceased the former. Hence, there is likewise no "indirect" pecuniary interest to speak of in this case.
In view of the lack of direct and indirect pecuniary interest of [respondent] Rodriguez in the questioned transactions despite being the son of the owner of R-4 Fuel, it follows that [respondent] Galsim's alleged interest therein must likewise be rejected, the latter being a mere "balae" of the owner of R-4 Fuel.
xxx xxx xxx
Noteworthy too is the fact that there are only two (2) gasoline stations within the Municipality of Sta. Cruz — R-4 Fuel and AUR Petron Center. Although [petitioner] submitted a Summary of Transactions made by the Municipality with R-4 Fuel to make it appear that there was a single-source procurement, the same was sufficiently rebutted by [respondents'] submission of documents showing numerous purchases from AUR Petron Center. 4 (citation omitted.)
As such, the CA correctly held that petitioner had failed to prove respondents' administrative liability through substantial evidence. ATICcS
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated June 27, 2018 and Resolution dated August 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155145.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016), citing Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
2.Dra. Baylon v. Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau, 442 Phil. 217, 234-235 (2002).
3.Rollo, p. 20.
4.Id. at 41-42, 44-45.