G.R. No. 172334; June 5, 2013
DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA, Petitioner, vs. HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Formerly Acting Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, Dr. OFELIA M. CARAGUE, Formerly PUP President, Dr. ROMAN R. DANNUG, Formerly Dean, College of Economics, Finance and Politics (CEFP), now Associate Professor, CEFP Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), Sta. Mesa, Manila, Respondents.

FACTS

The case stems from a complaint filed in December 2001 by respondent Dr. Roman Dannug, Dean of the College of Economics, Finance and Politics (CEFP) of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), against petitioner Dr. Zenaida P. Pia, a professor at PUP. Dannug alleged that Pia was directly selling to her students a book entitled “Organization Development Research Papers” at ₱120.00 per copy. This act was claimed to violate Section 3, Article X of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers, which prohibits teachers from acting as agents of or being financially interested in commercial ventures furnishing textbooks and other materials where the teacher’s official influence can be exercised. The act was also alleged to violate several PUP memoranda against the sale of books or items by faculty to their students. The books were described as mere bound machine copies of reports and research papers submitted by Pia’s former students and were believed to be overpriced. Dannug attached a list of students allegedly made to buy the book. For her defense, Pia argued her students were not forced to buy the book and submitted a certification from students to that effect. She also claimed the list attached was merely an attendance sheet.
After proceedings, the Office of the Ombudsman, in a Decision dated September 27, 2002, found Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. It ruled that the teacher’s moral ascendancy over students operates as a compulsion, making the lack of direct force immaterial. The penalty imposed was six months suspension without pay. Pia’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Respondents Dannug and Dr. Ofelia Carague implemented the suspension even before Pia could file her appeal. Pia filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in its Decision dated June 29, 2005, affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling. It held that Pia’s culpability was established by substantial evidence. It also declared the appeal dismissible, stating that the Ombudsman’s decision had attained finality when Pia filed her petition on March 20, 2003, as she allegedly failed to file within the ten-day period under the Ombudsman’s rules. Pia’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether Pia’s petition with the CA was filed on time.
2. Whether the CA erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s decision finding Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
3. Whether respondents Dannug and Carague erred in implementing the Ombudsman’s decision during Pia’s unexpired period to appeal.

RULING

1. On the Timeliness of the Appeal: The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s finding that the appeal was filed out of time. Citing Fabian v. Desierto and Dimagiba v. Espartero, the Court held that appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which provides a 15-day reglementary period. The 10-day period under the Ombudsman’s Administrative Order No. 14-A is inapplicable. Pia received the order denying her motion for reconsideration on February 18, 2003. She filed a motion for extension of time with the CA on February 24, 2003 (within the 15-day period) and filed her petition for review on March 20, 2003, within the 15-day extension requested. Therefore, her petition was timely filed.
2. On the Merits of the Administrative Case: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA that Pia was guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court upheld the doctrine that a teacher’s act of selling books or materials to her students, regardless of the absence of direct coercion, constitutes a violation of the teacher’s ethical standards due to the moral ascendancy and influence inherent in the teacher-student relationship. This act betrays the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. The Court found the Ombudsman’s decision supported by substantial evidence.
3. On the Premature Implementation of the Penalty: The Supreme Court found merit in Pia’s contention that the implementation of the suspension penalty by respondents Dannug and Carague during her period to appeal was erroneous. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that a decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative case becomes final and executory only after the aggrieved party has filed a timely appeal and the appellate court has given due course to it. The immediate implementation of the penalty before the lapse of the appeal period deprived Pia of her statutory right to appeal. However, given the Court’s ultimate affirmation of the penalty, this error was rendered moot.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Petition was DENIED. The Decision dated June 29, 2005 and Resolution dated March 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.