G.R. No. 175433 March 11, 2015
ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. MAILA CLEMEN F. SERRANO, Respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Maila Clemen F. Serrano (respondent) filed an administrative complaint against her direct superior, Atty. Jacinto C. Gonzales (petitioner), Chief of the Legal Division of the Philippine Racing Commission (PHILRACOM), for grave misconduct, sexual harassment, and acts of lasciviousness. The complaint stemmed from an incident on November 23, 2000, where petitioner, during a lunch treat at a restaurant, allegedly forcefully kissed respondent on the lips against her will in the presence of officemates. Respondent also alleged prior unwelcome advances and degrading remarks from petitioner. The incident was corroborated by a Joint Affidavit from three officemates. Petitioner claimed the kiss was an innocent birthday greeting on the cheek. The Ombudsman Administrative Adjudication Bureau initially found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal. However, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman modified the decision, finding petitioner guilty only of simple misconduct and reducing the penalty to a one-month suspension. Respondent challenged this modification before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA reversed the Overall Deputy Ombudsman’s order and reinstated the original Ombudsman decision finding grave misconduct and imposing dismissal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA for being a prohibited motion. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in setting aside the Memorandum-Order of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman and reinstating the Decision of the Ombudsman Administrative Adjudication Bureau finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and imposing the penalty of dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CA correctly found that the Overall Deputy Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the original decision. The Court ruled that the act of petitioner—forcibly kissing a subordinate against her will in a public place—constituted grave misconduct, which is a grave offense punishable by dismissal under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The Court emphasized that misconduct becomes grave when it involves elements of corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. Petitioner’s act was a flagrant violation of Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act) and exhibited moral depravity, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service. The Court further held that the CA properly exercised its certiorari jurisdiction as the Deputy Ombudsman’s modification, which drastically reduced the penalty despite overwhelming evidence, was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by the CA was also upheld as it was a prohibited motion under the rules.