GR 221647; (November, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 221647 & G.R. No. 222003, November 27, 2018
Loida S. Villanueva, Petitioner, vs. F/Sinsp. Rolando T. Reodique, Respondent. [G.R. No. 222003] Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. F/Sinsp. Rolando T. Reodique, Respondent.
FACTS
On January 17, 2011, Loida S. Villanueva alleged that while walking in Cembo, Makati City, respondent Fire Senior Inspector Rolando T. Reodique, who was drinking with friends, shouted vulgar and defamatory statements at her, including “Putang ina n’yo!” while waving a dirty finger. A witness corroborated her account. Villanueva reported the incident to the barangay, noting that the harassment began after her husband left a fraternal group led by Reodique. She formalized a complaint, and after failed settlement, obtained a Certificate to File Action.
In his defense, Reodique denied the allegations and claimed it was Villanueva who initiated the verbal tirade against him. His supporting witnesses provided a conflicting narrative, stating Villanueva started shouting invectives while they were discussing a movie. The Ombudsman found Reodique administratively liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Crucially, this was a second offense, as evidenced by a prior Ombudsman decision dated June 15, 2009, where he was suspended for six months for the same offense against a different person. The Ombudsman imposed the penalty of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in modifying the penalty from dismissal from the service to a one-year suspension.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reinstated the Ombudsman’s penalty of dismissal. The legal logic centers on the application of administrative penalties for repeat offenders and the principle of finality of prior administrative decisions. The Court affirmed the factual finding of liability, as the Ombudsman’s assessment of the credible evidence against Reodique was sustained. The core issue was the propriety of the penalty.
The Court emphasized that a prior administrative finding of guilt for the same offense is a relevant aggravating circumstance. The Ombudsman’s 2009 decision suspending Reodique was a final and executory judgment. This prior record established him as a repeat offender, warranting a stiffer penalty under civil service rules. The Court of Appeals erred in not giving conclusive weight to this prior offense, which was integral to the Ombudsman’s imposition of dismissal.
The Supreme Court held that conduct unbecoming a public officer, especially when repeated, erodes public respect for the service. Dismissal was the appropriate penalty to preserve the integrity of the civil service. The Court reinstated the Ombudsman’s decision, imposing dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification, with an alternative fine if dismissal was no longer feasible.