SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235967. March 12, 2018.]
JAMELA M. MACADATO, petitioner,vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN AND THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN-VISAYAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 March 2018which reads as follows: TIADCc
"G.R. No. 235967 (Jamela M. Macadato v. The Honorable Ombudsman and The Honorable Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the May 31, 2017 Decision 1 and November 13, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08542 for failure of petitioner Jamela M. Macadato (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in: (a) dismissing her appeal in the criminal aspect of the case for availing of a wrong remedy; and (b) upholding her administrative liability for Serious Dishonesty.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's appeal in the criminal aspect of the case must be dismissed outright for availing of a wrong remedy, considering that the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in criminal cases may only be reviewed by the Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 3 While the CA may indeed entertain an appeal of the Ombudsman's ruling in criminal cases if it is consolidated with an administrative case, 4 such circumstance does not obtain here as the records clearly show that the criminal and administrative cases against petitioner were decided separately.
Further, the CA is also correct in upholding petitioner's administrative liability for Serious Dishonesty, 5 considering that she proceeded with the registration process of the vehicle despite the obvious discrepancy between the vehicle presented to her for registration and its supporting papers, which are glaringly questionable and irregular.
Finally, the petition is likewise dismissible for petitioner's failure to attach copies of the: (a) May 31, 2010 Decision of the Ombudsman in Administrative Case OMB-V-A-06-0294-E; and (b) May 31, 2010 Resolution in Criminal Case OMB-V-C-06-0278-E, which are material portions of the record pursuant to Section 4 (d) in relation to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 40-54. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
2.Id. at 58-61. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino concurring.
3. See Duyon v. The Former Special Fourth Division of the CA, 748 Phil. 375, 384-385 (2014); citation omitted.
4. See Cortes v. Ombudsman, 710 Phil. 699, 703 (2013).
5. "Dishonesty has been defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray and an intent to violate the truth. For dishonesty to be considered serious — warranting the penalty of dismissal from the service — the presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances must be present: (1) The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the Government; (2) The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act; (3) Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption; (4) The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent; (5) The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment; (6) The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions; (7) The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets; (8) Other analogous circumstances." (Alfornon v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016, 796 SCRA 194, 206-207; citations omitted)