Aggrieved, respondent brought the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, attributing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman. On August 16,
2006, the CA sustained respondent and rendered the herein assailed decision. Thus:
chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The memorandumorder dated 03 January 2003 and the Order dated 11 February 2003 approved by then
Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. in OMB-ADM-0-01-0162 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated 19 March 2002 approved by then
Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto in OMB-ADM-0-01-0162 (RAS-2001-0156) is hereby
REINSTATED. Costs against private respondent.
SO ORDERED.15
cralawlawlib ra ry
Thereafter, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for
Reconsideration,16 but the CA denied it in a Resolution17 dated October 4, 2006 for
being a prohibited motion.
Hence, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review.
Petitioner raises the following issues:
chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN SETTING ASIDE
THE MEMORANDUM-ORDER DATED 03 JANUARY 2003 AND THE ORDER DATED 11
FEBRUARY 2003 APPROVED BY THE THEN OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN MARGARITO
P. GERVACIO, JR. IN OMB-ADM-0-01-0162, IT APPEARING THAT THE DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN, IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS ONLY SIMPLE MISCONDUCT, HAS NOT
BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK, OR IN EXCESS OF DISCRETION [sic], UPON WHICH THE INSTANT PETITION IS
BASED, IN GROSS CONTRAVENTION OF THE RULES AND ESTABLISHED
JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE GROSSLY ERRED IN DENYING
PETITIONER'S URGENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE GROUNDS INVOKED
THEREIN NOT BEING APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR AND MOREOVER, THE DENIAL
THEREOF HAS SACRIF[I]CED THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO
TECHNICALITIES OF PROCEDURE.18
cralawlawlibra ry
On the first issue, petitioner asserts that it is only in an appealed case, not in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65, that the CA has authority to substitute its own findings and
conclusions with that of the disciplining authority. He points out that what is claimed as
“grave abuse of discretion” on the part of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman was his
alleged erroneous approval of the Memorandum-Order dated January 3, 2003 which
modified the infraction and the penalty from grave misconduct to simple misconduct,
and from dismissal to a mere one (1) month suspension without pay. But, he argues
that such was merely an error in the exercise of judgment or discretion which is not
correctible by a writ of certiorari. He also argues that the mere fact that the Overall
Deputy Ombudsman made findings and conclusions contrary to or inconsistent with