[G.R.
No. 112354. February 15, 2000]
CASCUELA
vs. OFC. OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated FEB 15 2000.
G.R. No. 112354
(Luvimino P. Casuela vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Jose L.
Valeriano.)
In a decision rendered on May 4, 1992, the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) dismissed herein petitioner JOSE L.
VALERIANO for acts of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service. He was found guilty of asking P5,000.00 from one Ms. Mary
Elaine Bonito to process her papers. The Secretary of Labor affirmed the
decision. On appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the CSC denied the
appeal for lack of merit. 1 Rollo, pp. 215-216.
On August 12, 1992, petitioner VALERIANO filed a
complaint 2 Id., at 31.with the
Office of the Ombudsman against the members of the POEA Administrative
Complaints Committee, of which LUVIMINO P. CASUELA was a member, for willful
violation of Section 36, Article IX of the Civil Service Law. Petitioner
VALERIANO contended that the Committee violated the five-day bar on
administrative investigations since he was investigated on the same day the
complaint against him was filed.
In a resolution 3 Id., at 23-26.dated July
22, 1993, the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman
found the Committee members administratively liable for inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties. CASUELA was meted a penalty
of suspension for three (3) months. His Motion for Reconsideration was likewise
denied. 4 Id., at 30.
On November 12, 1993, CASUELA filed a petition for certiorari
5 Id., at 2-22.with the Supreme Court assailing the Ombudsman
decision. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 112354. On March 25, 1994, the Office of the Solicitor General
filed its Comment 6 Id., at 141-154.recommending
that the petition be denied for lack of merit.
On May 18, 1994, petitioner VALERIANO filed an
affidavit designated as an Appeal 7 Id., at 211-212.insisting
that the decision in G.R. No. 112354 would likewise be a ruling on his charge
of illegal dismissal.
On October 11, 1994, petitioner VALERIANO filed a
“Petition to Withdraw Private Respondent Jose L. Valeriano Comment in Favor of
Petitioner Luvimino P. Casuela” 8 Id., at 345.wherein he
manifested that -
“…
That I abide with the Decision of the Civil Service Commission with regard to
my dismissal and forfeiture of such benefits and disqualification to join the
government service for life.”
Thereafter, the parties were required to submit their
respective memoranda. In his
Memorandum, 9 Id., at 373-385.petitioner VALERIANO retracted his previous
manifestation that he will abide by the CSC Decision.
On August 4, 1997, the Court en banc, thru
Hermosisima, J., rendered a decision 10 Id., at 398-411.dismissing
the petition. The Court ruled that the
Ombudsman acted in accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence in finding
the Committee members administratively liable for the dismissal of
VALERIANO. CASUELA filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, which however, was denied with finality. 11 Id., at 420.
On January 18, 2000, petitioner VALERIANO filed the
present Petition to Order Department of Labor and Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration to Compensate Petitioner Jose L. Valeriano with
regard to his Illegal Dismissal from the Government Service and All Accruing
Benefits therefrom. 12 Id., at 426-435.Petitioner
VALERIANO contends that the Court’s decision in G R No 112354 was a definitive
ruling by the Court that he was illegally dismissed and therefore entitled to
backwages and other benefits.
Acting on the aforesaid petition, the Court hereby
resolved to DENY said petition for lack of merit.
The Court’s decision in G.R. No. 112354 was a ruling
on the administrative liability of CASUELA for the improper conduct of the
investigation of VALERIANO. The
decision did not rule that VALERIANO was illegally dismissed by the POEA.
Further, VALERIANO failed to seasonably appeal the CSC
decision to this Court pursuant to Section 7 of Article IX of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that -
“Sec.
7. … Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
In fact, petitioner VALERIANO himself appended to his
previously designated pleading captioned as an “Appeal” the decision of the CSC
on his motion for reconsideration.
Anent the alleged illegal dismissal, CSC Resolution No. 94-1248 13 Id., at 215-216.provided
that -
“There was factual basis for upholding the dismissal of Valeriano. The case was dispassionately decided with strictest objectivity.
While movant Valeriano claims that
he was denied due process of law, the records of the case show otherwise. Hearings were held and respondent-appellant
Valeriano was given due notices thereof…
Anent the affidavit of desistance of private
complainant Bonito, the withdrawal or retraction of the administrative
complaint or charge does not ipso facto terminate the case. The moment the charge is filed against an
officer or employee, it ceases to be a private matter but becomes an offense
against public interest, the complainant being relegated to the status of a
mere witness.”
The records do not show, and
petitioner VALERIANO does not claim otherwise, that petitioner seasonably
appealed said decision. Hence, it
already became final and executory as to the issue of the validity of his
dismissal.
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Buena, J., is on leave.
Very
truly yours,
Clerk
of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court