SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253923. October 6, 2021.]
RHETT E. MINGUEZ, petitioner,vs. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY AGIO EUGENIO G. FERRER, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253923 (Rhett E. Minguez v. Field Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman, represented by Agio Eugenio G. Ferrer). — The Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Rhett E. Minguez (petitioner) for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its November 29, 2017 Decision 2 and August 28, 2020 Resolution 3 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 08929 which affirmed the August 11, 2014 Decision 4 of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in OMB-C-A-08-0499-I, finding petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. 5
At the onset, settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to review evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof. 6 Also, factual findings of the OMB are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA, 7 as in the present case. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 8
Here, the CA did not err in affirming the Decision of the OMB. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, records show that the OMB Decision was supported by substantial evidence. 9
Moreover, the Court notes that petitioner failed to timely file his counter-affidavit before the OMB. Petitioner submitted his counter-affidavit only on December 5, 2014, when he filed an Urgent Motion to Admit Attached Counter Affidavit in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration. 10 Unfortunately, the OMB has already denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on November 26, 2014. 11 In any event, a perusal of petitioner's belated counter-affidavit reveals that the same is self-serving and unsubstantiated by competent evidence. 12
In lieu of a counter-affidavit, petitioner filed a verified answer and merely asserted that the OMB has been divested of jurisdiction over the administrative complaint due to his retirement from the service on September 24, 2010. He further averred that the complaint was rendered moot and academic by his retirement since he can no longer be removed from the service in the event he is found administratively liable for the offenses charged. 13 These assertions of petitioner were already brushed aside by the OMB in its August 11, 2014 Decision. Petitioner, through the instant petition, nonetheless insists on the OMB's want of jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against him in view of his retirement on September 24, 2010. CAIHTE
Petitioner is mistaken.
Cessation from office of a public official by resignation or retirement neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against such public official while he/she was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic. 14 Jurisdiction that was Ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the public official had ceased in office during the pendency of the case. 15 The administrative complaint against petitioner was filed with the OMB on June 18, 2008, way prior to his retirement on September 24, 2010. 16
All told, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA that will warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate review.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The November 29, 2017 Decision and August 28, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 08929 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-26.
2.Id. at 28-40; penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
3.Id. at 43-49; penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan.
4.Id. at 181-189; penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer I Myla Teona N. Teologio.
5.Id. at 187.
6.Dr. Pia v. Hon. Gervacio Jr., 710 Phil. 196, 205 (2013).
7.Id.
8. Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
9.Id. at 35-39. Rollo, pp. 181-189.
10.Id. at 195-200.
11.Id. at 32.
12.Id. at 197-200.
13.Id. at 177-178.
14.Office of the Ombudsman v. De Chavez, 721 Phil. 124, 136 (2013) citing Baquerfo v. Sanchez, 495 Phil. 10 (2005).
15.Id.
16.Rollo, p. 183.