BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the dismissal of the administrative charges filed by former City Health Office (CHO) chief Bernard Caspe against Mayor Jerry Treñas and former CHO job-order worker Khrystyl Marie Lampa.
The CA’s 18th Division dismissed the petition of Caspe, who sought to reverse the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in dismissing the misconduct complaints against Treñas and Lampa. The appeals court noted that Caspe’s argument is “misplaced.”
The appeals court stressed that findings of fact by the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, which refers to “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
“Because of its special knowledge and expertise over the matters falling under its jurisdiction, the factual findings of the Ombudsman are generally accorded great weight and respect, if not finality by the courts,” read the CA decision penned by Associate Justice Nancy Rivas-Palmones.
In 2020, Caspe accused Treñas and Lampa of violations of Rep. Act No. 6713, the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and grave Misconduct.
Such came after Lampa filed a complaint against him for alleged gross immorality and grave abuse of authority, stating that the doctor, while she was a Nursing Assistant at the Arevalo District Health Center where he served as the center’s chief at the time in 2011, flirted with her while he was married.
Lampa also alleged that she was only one of Caspe’s purported lovers.
Caspe argued that he was deprived of due process as he did not undergo a preliminary investigation and that there was no substantial evidence to grant the complaint against him.
The doctor also alleged that the mayor continued to threaten, coerce, and oppress those who had actively engaged in former mayor Espinosa’s “Pag-Ulikid” program and that he was oppressed when he was excluded from the city’s COVID-19 Task Force as CHO chief.
The political allegations against the mayor were dismissed, pointing to the job-order employee’s administrative complaint against the former CHO chief.
Likewise, the Ombudsman said there was no substantial proof to charge Treñas and Lampa because there was no evidence against them, and likewise shunning the allegations on the lack of due process.
Unfazed, Caspe filed the petition for review with the appeals court and argued the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the petition.
In the decision, the appellate court held that Caspe filed the wrong remedy in questioning the decision of the anti-graft office.
Appeals from the decision of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be elevated with the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Section 27 of Republic Act 6770, or the Ombudsman Act, also provides that the decision of the Ombudsman in absolving the respondents is final and unappealable.
“In any event, petitioner also failed to show any grave abuse or any reversible error on the part of the Ombudsman-Visayas to compel us to overturn its assailed administrative ruling,” the CA ruled./PN
