GR 145564; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145564. March 24, 2006
CORAZON G. BUNTAG, Petitioner, vs. NIDA PAĂ‘A, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Corazon G. Buntag, a Social Welfare Assistant, was designated chairman of a Universal Children’s Month event. She was charged with six counts of Falsification of Official Document for preparing reimbursement receipts totaling P1,200.00 for honoraria of six judges who did not actually attend. The amount was instead used to reimburse a day care worker who advanced funds for decoration materials. The Office of the Ombudsman initially ordered her dismissal but, on 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 petition is dismissed. Procedurally, the petitioner erroneously filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. The CA decision had become final and executory, as the petition was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and none of the recognized exceptions to relax this rule are present.
On the substantive merits, even if treated as a certiorari petition, no grave abuse of discretion was committed. The petitioner does not dispute the falsification but contests the penalty as excessive. Under the applicable Omnibus Civil Service Rules, Falsification of Official Document is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for a first offense. However, mitigating circumstances may be considered in modifying the penalty. The Ombudsman and the CA correctly considered the petitioner’s 23 years of service and lack of prior infraction as mitigating circumstances, thereby reducing the penalty from dismissal to a one-year suspension. This aligns with jurisprudence where similar mitigating factors warranted a reduction of penalty. The imposed penalty is thus proper and within the sound discretion of the administrative bodies.