04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly power to determine the case. There is excess of jurisdiction where, being clothed with the power to determine the case, the tribunal, board or officer oversteps its/his authority as determined by law. And there is grave abuse of discretion where the tribunal, board or officer acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In the instant case, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, after weighing all the evidence presented by the parties, concluded that private respondents were not guilty of the administrative case for gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the public interest. Certainly, private respondents did not declare any falsity as alleged by petitioner when they claimed reimbursements from NCIP of their per diems and taxi fares. That private respondents did not make untruthful statements when they asserted that the amount they received from these two companies did not include per diems and taxi fares was substantiated by the fact that La Concepcion Construction and Rio Tuba Mining Company, through their respective employees, issued affidavits consonant to the declarations of private respondents. Indeed, private respondents were of the belief that the allowances given to them did not include their per diems and taxi fares. Thus, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon correctly concluded that private respondents could not have been liable for the charge of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the public interest. Rather, they can only be liable for failing to observe the injunction under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 which exhorts: "Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and resources." This Court cites with approval the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon's conclusion: Thus, we are inclined to rule and so hold that the respondents fell short of the conduct expected of them as public officers as mandated under Section 4(a) of R.A. 6713 which states that: "Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All [government] resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and resources." x x x Respondents Sandy P. Padilla and Monico A. Dingal, Jr. are hereby meted a penalty of REPRIMAND with a Stern Warning that a repetition of the same act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. x x x.[20] Contrary to the postulation of petitioner, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon's joint order was based on substantial evidence. There is therefore no reason for this Court to render the same void. G.R. Nos. 167335 and 167337 In the instant special civil action Ombudsman for Luzon committed cause against private respondents Falsification under Article 171(4) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44053 for certiorari, petitioner insists that the Deputy grave abuse of discretion in not finding probable for violating the complex crime of Estafa through of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e) of 8/11