G.R. No. 232325 , April 10, 2019
Domingo Crebello, Petitioner vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Timoteo T. Capoquian, Jr., Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Domingo Crebello filed an administrative complaint for nepotism against respondent Mayor Timoteo T. Capoquian, Jr. before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). The complaint alleged that the Mayor appointed his sister to the Board of Directors of the Gamay Water District. The respondent failed to file his counter-affidavit and position paper despite notice. In its decision, the OMB dismissed the administrative case against the Mayor, applying the doctrine of condonation due to his re-election in 2010. The OMB found the doctrine applicable despite its abandonment in Morales v. Court of Appeals in 2015, as the abandonment was deemed final only on April 12, 2016.
Crebellosought reconsideration, arguing the doctrine’s abandonment, but the OMB denied it. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition, ruling it was the wrong remedy as appeals from OMB administrative decisions should be via petition for review under Rule 43, citing Fabian v. Desierto.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and whether the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in applying the condonation doctrine.

RULING

Yes, the CA erred. The Supreme Court clarified that while a decision of the OMB absolving an elective official is final and unappealable under its rules, it may still be challenged via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The CA’s rigid application of Fabian was incorrect, as that case pertained to appeals, not special civil actions questioning jurisdictional errors.
The OMB committed grave abuse of discretion. The condonation doctrine, abandoned as of April 12, 2016, was a matter of defense that must be specifically invoked by the respondent. Here, respondent Capoquian, Jr. never raised it, having waived his right to present evidence by not filing his counter-affidavit. The OMB’s sua sponte application of the doctrine for a respondent who did not plead it was whimsical and arbitrary. Consequently, the administrative liability for nepotism stands. However, as the term during which the act was committed had expired, the principal penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed. The Court instead imposed the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a bar from taking civil service examinations.