FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244790. June 17, 2019.]
SARAH JANE M. SUAREZ, petitioner, vs.HON. MARIA VIVIANE CACHO-CALICDAN, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER III, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION OFFICE (PACPO)-LUZON, REPRESENTED BY: MARIVIC B. DELA CRUZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 17, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244790 — Sarah Jane M. Suarez, petitioner, v. Hon. Maria Viviane Cacho-Calicdan, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Ombudsman and the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO)-Luzon, Represented by: Marivic B. Dela Cruz, respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time 1 seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on March 8, 2019 within which to file her Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for: (a) non-compliance with the required verification; 2(b) non-compliance with the required certification against forum shopping; 3 and (c) failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. HTcADC
The Ombudsman (OMB) and the CA were one in the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct for her failure to perform her task as a district accountant. To be considered grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule must be present. 4 In this case, the OMB, acting on the Audit Report issued by Commission on Audit on the irregularities in the implementation of the Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (QUEDANCOR) Swine Program (QSP), properly conducted an investigation and found that the petitioner took part in the release of the loan proceeds in full without verifying if actual deliveries of the farm inputs were made. Petitioner's acts clearly constituted flagrant disregard of established rules. A finding of guilt in administrative cases would be sustained as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that petitioner committed the acts stated in the complaint. 5 It bears to stress that factual findings of the OMB when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect, if not finality, by this Court. Hence, it is not inclined to depart from the uniform findings of the OMB and the CA.
As to the criminal aspect of the case, CA was correct in holding that the petitioner improperly raised in her Petition for Review filed under Rule 43 before the CA the question of whether the OMB erred in finding probable cause for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. Her proper recourse should have been to file a separate Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before this Court to question the OMB's finding of probable cause. 6 CAIHTE
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed May 25, 2018 Decision and the February 8, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151111.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2. Date of execution and notarization of the verification by affiant was not indicated.
3. Date of execution and notarization of the certification on non-forum shopping by affiant was not indicated.
4.Office of the Ombudsman v. Magno, 592 Phil. 636, 658 (2008).
5.Velasquez v. Hernandez, 480 Phil. 844, 859 (2004).
6.Duyon v. The Former Special Fourth Division of the CA, 748 Phil. 375, 384-385 (2014).