SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244402. June 26, 2019.]
LT. COL. MARY CHRISTINE MARTINEZ-YBAÑEZ, CPL. JACKSON F. MARTINEZ, CPL. RYAN M. BUENAOBRA, SSGT. ROMMEL B. PELOVELLO, AND SSGT. FREDDIE C. GOSOSO, petitioners, vs.OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, REPRESENTED BY CYRIL E. RAMOS, AND BERNABE T. BAUTISTA, SR., AND ARSENIO T. BAUTISTA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated26 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244402 (Lt. Col. Mary Christine Martinez-Ybañez, Cpl. Jackson F. Martinez, Cpl. Ryan M. Buenaobra, Ssgt. Rommel B. Pelovello, and Ssgt. Freddie C. Gososo v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, represented by Cyril E. Ramos, and Bernabe T. Bautista, Sr., and Arsenio T. Bautista)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Resolutions dated July 24, 2018 2 and December 17, 2018 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 156292 for failure of petitioners Lt. Col. Mary Christine Martinez-Ybañez, Cpl. Jackson F. Martinez, Cpl. Ryan M. Buenaobra, Ssgt. Rommel B. Pelovello, and Ssgt. Freddie C. Gososo (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong mode of review. 4 HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners erroneously filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules) in assailing the ruling 5 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) which imposed on them the penalty of a fine equivalent to their respective salaries for nine (9) months. 6 It is settled that the foregoing remedy is only available to contest an Ombudsman ruling in administrative disciplinary cases when: (a) the respondent therein is absolved of the charge; and (b) in case of conviction, where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month, or a fine equivalent to one (1)-month salary. 7 In all other cases, the proper remedy is to file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the above-mentioned Rules. 8
In any event, the Ombudsman correctly found that petitioners' acts of covering up for petitioner Cpl. Jackson F. Martinez's wrongdoing, not only by failing to turn him over to the police authorities, but also by cleaning up the scene where the indiscriminate firing happened, constitutes Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service which is defined as a demeanor of a public officer that tarnishes the image and integrity of his/her public office. 9 CAIHTE
Finally, the petition is likewise dismissible for petitioners' failure to attach a copy of the July 24, 2018 Resolution of the CA, a material portion of the record, pursuant to Section 4 (d), in relation to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-24.
2. Not attached to the rollo.
3.Rollo, pp. 32-35. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
4. See id. at 33.
5. See Ombudsman Decision dated March 1, 2017, approved by Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices Cyril E. Ramos; id. at 25-30.
6. See id. at 28.
7. See Mandagan v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 228267, October 8, 2018, citing Dagan v. Ombudsman, 721 Phil. 400, 411 (2013).
8. See id. See also Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, otherwise known as the "RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN," (April 10, 1990).
9. See Fajardo v. Corral, G.R. No. 212641, July 5, 2017, 830 SCRA 161, 170, citing Largo v. CA, 563 Phil. 293, 305 (2007).