GR 170691; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170691 ; April 23, 2008
REBECCA E. BADIOLA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, and LERMA G. ABESAMIS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rebecca E. Badiola, the Human Resource Management Officer V and Chief of the Personnel Division of the Department of Agriculture (DA), was the Head Secretariat of the DA Promotion and Selection Board (DA-PSB). Private respondent Lerma G. Abesamis, a DA employee, filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. Abesamis alleged that Badiola caused undue delay in processing her application for a promotional position to favor another applicant. She also accused Badiola of dishonesty regarding her educational qualifications, claiming Badiola misrepresented in her Personal Data Sheet that she held a Master’s Degree at the time of her appointment in January 1999 when she only graduated in March 1999.
The Ombudsman found Badiola guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed a three-month suspension without pay. The Ombudsman ruled that while the charge of deliberate delay was not substantiated, Badiola failed to exercise due diligence in her role as Head Secretariat. Specifically, the Ombudsman cited errors in a matrix of applicants prepared by her office, which contained incorrect data about the endorsers and educational attainments of applicants, including Abesamis. Badiola filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it. She then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Badiola’s petition and upholding the Ombudsman’s finding of simple neglect of duty.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed resolutions. The Court held that the petition was improperly filed as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A judgment or final order of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases is appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Badiola’s remedy from the CA’s decision was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a second petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA, as it correctly declined to re-evaluate the factual findings of the Ombudsman.
On the merits, the Supreme Court sustained the Ombudsman’s factual conclusion. Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, signifying a disregard of duty due to carelessness or indifference. The presence of several inaccuracies in the official matrix of applicants prepared under Badiola’s supervision constituted substantial evidence of this failure. As Head Secretariat, she had the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of such a critical document for the promotion process. Her explanation that the errors were honest mistakes did not absolve her of the charge of neglect in the performance of her duties. The imposed penalty of three-month suspension was within the Ombudsman’s discretion and proportional to the infraction.