Puso, Josal G.

September 9, 2023
Communication Skills for Lawyers - JD1A N Atty. Ocampo-Magugat, Regina

Miro vs. Mendoza vda. De Erederos et. al. GR 172532, November 20, 2013

FACTS:

Mendoza, Marilyn VDA, a Director of the Regional Office VII of the Land Transportation Office
(LTO) Cebu City was charged by Miro, Primo C., Deputy of Ombudsman for the Visayas of
grave misconduct for violation of Section (3) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for selling the confirmation certificates at Php2,500 without
official receipt where it supposed to be free of charge and that the same were no longer
acknowledged in Mendoza’s admin.

The NBI/Progress report to LTO Manila also revealed that the Confirmation Certificates were
given to the representatives of car dealers, who happens to be authorized to supply needed data.

The Deputy Ombudsman found Mendoza, Erederos et al found guilty of grave misconduct and
imposed dismissal from the service as penalty after citing NBI/Progress report as well as the
complainants’ affidavits to be strong to establish the guilt of the respondents.

Respondents filed for Motion for Reconsideration but the Deputy of Ombudsman denied the
same on March 5, 2004 hence the appeal to the CA which found that pieces of evidence were
hearsay. Unhappy with the CA ruling, an appeal was presented hence the present case before the
SC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents are guilty of violation of Section (3) of Republic Act No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

HELD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the CA. It cannot establish that in fact the solicited
payment was demanded personally. The reports likewise of the NBI as well as the affidavits did
not prove guilt of the respondents and that the same were more of a hearsay. The appeal was
denied citing the respondents not guilty of the crime charged.
 Saligumba vs CA, GR 238643 September 8, 2020

FACTS:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the November 17, 2017 order of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08014-MIN which affirmed the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao finding Saligumba guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Gross
Misconduct.

In June 24, 2013, COA representatives Cantalejo Dime and Beniga, revealed that Saligumba
incurred a cash shortage of Php223, 050.93. Despite no formal demand, Saligumba returned the
missing funds by paying the full amount from July 3, 2013 to August 7, 2013. The shortage
according to Saligumba was due to the Mayor’s order to issue receipt though not having received
any cash from the vendors as the latter to pay staggered and that by record they may have no tax
liability. Unfortunately, no payment from the vendors were actually made. To support her
allegations, joint affidavits by market vendors Fritzie Martinote and Rosenda Salem were
submitted. Saligumba etirated that she was in good having just followed the orders of the Mayor
and that the charge against her must be dismissed. However, on November 29, 2016, the Office
of Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding Saligumba administratively liable for Gross
Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Saligumba is liable after only following the orders of the Mayor and that further
if she may be excused from the crime charged considering her tenure in the service and the same
is a first-time offender.

HELD:

The Court held that as government employee, Saligumba knew her duties and responsibilities.
Her defenses cannot hold water, hence, she was found guilty for Grave Misconduct and Serious
Dishonesty. Penalty of dismissal of government service is meted even for first-time offenders,
under Sec. 46 1 and 3, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service.
 Mahinog vs CA, GR 230355 March 18,2021

FACTS:

On April 14, 2010, Alma J. Genotiva (private respondent) files a complaint before Civil Service
Commission Regional Office No. VIII (CSCRO VIII) for conflict of interest, grave abuse of
authority, dishonesty and violation graft and corruption practices and the Anti-Red Tape Act
against several employees of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) Tacloban Office,
including petitioner specifically against Jenevieve Villasin (Professional Regulation Assistant),
Maria Evelyn D. Larraga (Professional Regulation Assistant), petitioner (Professional Regulation
Officer II), Elizabeth S. Baronda (Administrative Assistant), Mahalina Duroy (contractual),
Trinidad Rebato (contractual), and Allan W. Booc (contractual) for committing acts that
constitute the abuse of office by taking and selling PRC property for their own interest.

CSCRO VIII found petitioner guilty of the administrative offense for taking the forms. The CA
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as procedural requirements lapsed and decided on the case
based on the same not on the merits.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA and CSC’s decision were invalid.

HELD:

The Court held that the CA and CSC erred in citing the petitioner guilty of the crime charged.
CA should have decided based on the merits and not primarily on the procedural grounds.
Mahinay is ablsolved from any administrative liability.
 Ombudsman vs Fronda & Arias, GR 211239 April 26,2021

FACTS:

On March 14, 2008, Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against Mirofe C. Fronda and
Florendo B. Arias and (47) other employees for dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross neglect of
duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On April 15, 2011, the Ombudsman rendered its decision in OMB C-A-08-0657, finding twenty-
four (24) of the respondents administratively liable, dismissing nineteen (19) for serious
dishonesty, and meting out one-month suspension for the remaining five (5) respondents.
Ombudsman believed that there’s a scheme of fictitious repairs by the respondent officials and
the anomalous transactions of vehicle repairs would not have materialized without the
cooperation and participation of the liable respondents.

Respondents filed for Motion for Reconsideration on the Ombudsman s Decision on April 15,
20111, same was denied on October 18, 2011.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA decision of dismissing OMB-C-A-08-0657-L and Arias and Fronda being
Absolved from their liability is valid.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the Dismissal of charges for dishonesty does not foreclose possible
liability for negligence The dismissal of the charges for dishonesty notwithstanding, respondents
can still be held liable for neglect of duty. Both Arias and Fronda ordered to be administratively
liable for Gross Neglect of Duty.
 CSC vs Rodriguez GR 248255 August 27,2020

FACTS:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 08948-MIN.

On June 7 and 8, 1988, Marilou T. Rodriguez took the Nursing Licensure Examination (NLE) in
Manila. Unfortunately, Rodriguez name was not on the list of successful examinees. Sometime
in 1989 she applied as staff nurse at Davao Oriental Provincial Hospital and submitted to the
hospital and CSC her supposed passing rate of 79.6% in the 1988 NLE and her “PRC
Identification Card”. She was then accepted and given permanent status and eventually got
promoted as Nurse II.

Rodriguez consistently declared in her Personal Data Sheets that she took and passed the 1988
NLE with a rating of 79.6% and she possessed a valid PRC Identification Card. The respondent
never to submit to the hospital an updated copy of her license as a registered nurse.

On July 31, 2002, Rodriguez resigned from the hospital, thereafter, worked abroad from 2008 to
2013.

In November 2009, Rodriguez took the NLE again where she passed the examination,
Thereafter, she worked abroad again.

In 2013, Rodriguez returned to the country for good then applied and got appointed as nurse at
the Office of City Health Office, Mati, Davao Oriental.

On December 16, 2014, Rodriguez received a Show Cause Order from the CSC Regional Office
No. XI The said PRC Identification Card with license n0. 0158713 belonged to a certain “Ella S.
Estopo” certified by the PRC-Davao City Regional Director Josephone C. Villegas-Liamzon.
The respondent did not comply with the show cause order.
On April 24, 2015, Respondent was charged of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, prejudicial
to the best interest of the service and falsification of official documents by the CSC Regional
Office No. XI. On April 8, 2016, she was then found guilty by the decision of CSC Regional
Office No. XI.

Respondent filed for motion for reconsideration before CA and the petition was granted.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA decision to dismissed the administrative charges against the respondent is
valid.

HELD:

The court affirmed the decision of CSC Proper citing that respondent is guilty of the
administrative charges filed against her. CA should have consider the concept of good faith in
administrative cases, that “A person who acted in good faith must also be free from knowledge
of circumstances which ought to put him or her on injury”, which the respondents claim of good
faith failed