G.R. No. 161629 November 8, 2005
ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, HON. ABELARDO L. APORTADERA, in his capacity as Assistant Ombudsman, and Ombudsman’s Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau, Director AGAPITO ROSALES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma, as Chairman of the First Division of the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of Immigration, was found administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the service. The Ombudsman found him remiss in his duty for evaluating and transmitting applications for extension of Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) of certain foreign nationals despite questionable supporting documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision, imposing a penalty of six months and one day suspension without pay, which this Court initially sustained.
In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner argues that while the BSI interviews applicants, evaluates their papers, and makes a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners (BOC), the final approval authority rests solely with the BOC acting as a collegial body. He contends that the BOC’s subsequent approval of the applications, despite alleged defects, constituted an implicit determination that any deficiencies were inconsequential and effectively sanctioned his actions.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s administrative liability for conduct prejudicial to the service should be upheld given the BOC’s ultimate power to approve the visa applications.

RULING

The Court granted the motion for reconsideration and modified the penalty. It recognized the legal logic that while the BSI conducts the initial screening and evaluation, the BOC possesses the ultimate review and approval authority. The BOC performs an independent evaluation, and its approval signifies that it found no impropriety or had effectively waived any perceived deficiencies in the applications. The power of review is exercised to correct subordinate acts and ensure duties are performed according to law. By approving the applications, the BOC validated the transmittals.
However, the Court emphasized that public service demands utmost integrity and strict discipline. Petitioner was admonished to be more circumspect in his duties, as the slightest semblance of irregularity erodes public trust. Thus, the suspension was set aside, and he was instead admonished to avoid acts that could cloud his office’s credibility.