FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237737. June 27, 2018.]
RAFFY SALUPER MAG-ASO, petitioner, vs. FIELD INVESTIGATION UNIT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, MINDANAO, REPRESENTED BY DEXTER B. DUMAKAT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 27, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237737 — Raffy Saluper Mag-aso v. Field Investigation Unit, Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, represented by Dexter B. Dumakat
This Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on March 27, 2018 within which to file said Petition for Review on Certiorari.
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) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its June 29, 2017 Decision and February 28, 2018 Resolution in CA G.R. SP No. 07817-MIN. cHECAS
It is worth stressing that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. The present petition directly raises, as issues, the propriety of the CA's affirmance of the Ombudsman's decision that found petitioner guilty of falsification of official documents, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. While these issues may be one of law, its resolution also requires us to resolve the underlying issue of whether or not substantial evidence exists to hold petitioner liable for said charges. The latter question necessitates a review of the factual findings, which is not a function of this Court. It is not our duty to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. This Court therefore finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Ombudsman which were affirmed by the CA.
In any case, petitioner has failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the Ombudsman's Decision finding him guilty of falsification of public documents, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Falsification as an administrative offense is knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. 1 It does not matter if the documents were not prepared by the offender as long as that he knew the facts related therein were untrue. Here, petitioner admitted signing the Labor Agreements with full knowledge that they contained false information. While he signed said document which stated that it was the Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) that directly hired the construction workers for the housing project, he was well aware that it was undertaken by pakyaw contractors who hired laborers according to the terms of their own contracts. By signing said documents, petitioner certified that they were true and correct and facilitated its approval by the Heads of Office of the DSWD RO XI and the release of funds which were not due to KALAHI-CIDSS. aTHCSE
Dishonesty refers to a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon a person's ability to perform duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee. For the act of dishonesty to be classified as serious, it must be committed repeatedly or on different occasions, among others. 2 Here, petitioner had the obligation as the Administrative Officer of the DSWD RO XI to scrutinize the supporting documents for the proper liquidation of the cash advances. However, there was no attempt on his part to perform this duty. He certified to the correctness of the entries in the 24 Labor Agreements by affixing his signature therein although he already knew that these entries were false. His repeated deceitful acts therefore constituted serious dishonesty.
Petitioner's act of certifying to the correctness of the entries in the Labor Agreements by signing them despite knowledge of the untruthfulness of their entries clearly tarnished the image and integrity of the public service. Thus, finding petitioner guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service was proper. Prejudice to the service is not only through wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss of public property. "Greater damage comes with the public's perception of corruption and incompetence in the government." 3
Falsification of public documents and serious dishonesty are classified as grave offenses that are punishable by dismissal from the service. 4 Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is also classified as a grave offense punishable by suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense. 5 With the substantial evidence establishing petitioner's guilt for three different charges, the penalty to be imposed should be corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. 6 Thus, the penalty of dismissal from the service of petitioner was proper.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated June 29, 2017 and Resolution dated February 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07817-MIN. AHDacC
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-de Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, 567 Phil. 47, 58 (2008).
2.Alfornon v. Delos Santos, 789 Phil. 462, 474 (2016).
3.Japson v. Civil Service Commission, 663 Phil. 665, 667 (2011).
4. Section 46 (A), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
5. Section 46 (B), Id.
6. Section 50, Id.