GR 145564; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145564 . March 24, 2006. CORAZON G. BUNTAG, Petitioner, vs. NIDA PAÑA, FAITH C. GERONA, ANECIA C. CAHANAP, NORMA S. FERNANDEZ, MYRNA R. REPLAGAO, CHONA C. SILVOSA, MARIA FE C. ACERA, REY G. ACERA, VIOLETA V. DAZA, ELDA M. CALISO, JOCELYN SALCEDO, VENERANDA M. BAYLON, LEONILA O. DONASCO, MARILYN P. BABIA, LYNN M. GUZMAN and MA. GINA MADRELEJOS, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Corazon G. Buntag, a Social Welfare Assistant, was designated chairman of the Universal Children’s Month in Cagayan de Oro City in October 1995. She was charged with six counts of Falsification of Official Document for preparing reimbursement receipts amounting to P1,200.00 for honoraria of six judges who did not actually attend the event. The amount was instead used to reimburse a day care worker who advanced funds for decoration materials. The Office of the Ombudsman found her guilty and initially ordered her dismissal, but upon reconsideration, modified the penalty to a one-year suspension. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Ombudsman’s imposition of a one-year suspension penalty for the offense of Falsification of Official Document.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Procedurally, the petition was filed as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, which is improper as it challenges a final judgment of the Court of Appeals. The proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45, which petitioner filed out of time, rendering the CA decision final. Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal absent compelling exceptions, which are not present here.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Falsification of an Official Document is a grave offense punishable by dismissal under the applicable Omnibus Civil Service Rules. However, mitigating circumstances may be considered in modifying the penalty. The Ombudsman correctly considered petitioner’s 23 years of unblemished service and the fact that it was her first offense, and that no damage was caused to the government as she derived no personal gain. This aligns with jurisprudence where the Court has reduced penalties from dismissal to suspension for first-time offenders with long service records. The reduced penalty of one-year suspension was therefore proper and within the sound discretion of the Ombudsman, affirmed by the CA.