G.R. No. 220535 , July 08, 2020
Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio, Petitioner, vs. Elvira C. Chua, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 27, 2008, respondent Assistant Special Prosecutor Elvira Chua filed an administrative complaint before the Internal Affairs Board (IAB) of the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner Former Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio and Erlina C. Bernabe for Dishonesty, Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The complaint arose from a 2004 Christmas party charity drive among Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) employees, where Chua donated P26,660.00 specifically for the purchase of water pumps for typhoon victims in Quezon province, as stated in a receipt issued by Bernabe. In September 2006, Villa-Ignacio instructed Bernabe to apply for a manager’s check for P52,000.00 payable to Gawad Kalinga Community Development Foundation, Inc., which included Chua’s donation. An official receipt from Gawad Kalinga was posted on the OSP bulletin board. Villa-Ignacio claimed the change in beneficiary was discussed and agreed upon by employees during flag ceremonies, while Chua contested the donation in March 2008, alleging she was not informed of the diversion.
The IAB found Villa-Ignacio guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a three-month suspension without pay, dismissing the complaint against Bernabe. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially granted Villa-Ignacio’s petition and dismissed the charges. However, upon Chua’s motion for reconsideration, the CA rendered an Amended Decision dismissing Villa-Ignacio’s petition, finding that Chua did not consent to nor was informed of the diversion, supported by a Manifestation from 28 OSP officials and employees stating they only learned of the diversion later. The CA subsequently denied Villa-Ignacio’s motion for reconsideration as filed out of time, declaring the Amended Decision final and executory.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Amended Decision of the CA attained finality due to the alleged failure of Villa-Ignacio to timely file his Motion for Reconsideration.
2. Whether the 2012 Decision absolving Villa-Ignacio of the administrative charges was already final, executory and not appealable.
3. Whether Orlando Casimiro should have been disqualified from acting on the complaint pursuant to Section III(N) of Administrative Order No. 16.
4. Whether Villa-Ignacio is guilty of simple misconduct.

RULING

1. On the timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Supreme Court found that Villa-Ignacio timely filed his motion. The CA incorrectly computed the reglementary period from the date of his counsel’s receipt of the Amended Decision (December 5, 2014), concluding the last day for filing was December 22, 2014, and that the January 5, 2015 filing was late. The Court held that the 15-day period should be counted from December 15, 2014, the date Villa-Ignacio himself received the Amended Decision, making the January 5, 2015 filing timely. The period for filing a motion for reconsideration runs from the party’s personal receipt of the decision, not from counsel’s receipt.
2. On the finality of the 2012 CA Decision: The Court ruled that the 2012 CA Decision did not attain finality. Under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), a decision absolving the respondent or imposing a light penalty is final and unappealable. However, the IAB found Villa-Ignacio guilty of Simple Misconduct with a three-month suspension, which is not a light penalty. Therefore, the IAB decision was appealable to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. Consequently, the CA had jurisdiction to review the IAB decision, and its 2012 Decision was subject to a motion for reconsideration, which Chua timely filed.
3. On the disqualification of Orlando Casimiro: The Court found no merit in Villa-Ignacio’s claim. Section III(N) of A.O. No. 16 pertains to the disqualification of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman or a Deputy Ombudsman from investigating cases where the complaint is filed by an official or employee within their office unit. The provision did not apply as Casimiro was not the Overall Deputy Ombudsman or a Deputy Ombudsman at the time; he was a Director detailed to the IAB. Furthermore, the IAB is a collegial body, and Villa-Ignacio failed to prove any actual bias or violation of due process.
4. On the charge of Simple Misconduct: The Court found Villa-Ignacio not guilty of Simple Misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The evidence showed Villa-Ignacio acted with good faith, regularity, and transparency. The donation to Gawad Kalinga was made via a manager’s check, and an official receipt was posted on the OSP bulletin board for public information. The Court gave weight to the CA’s initial finding that Villa-Ignacio sought employee consensus during flag ceremonies. Chua’s silence for over three years before inquiring about her donation suggested implied consent. The Manifestation of 28 OSP employees, stating they only recently learned of the diversion, was deemed unreliable as it was executed after the complaint was filed and appeared to be influenced by the ongoing dispute. Thus, Villa-Ignacio’s actions did not constitute misconduct warranting administrative liability.