Ebrencio F.
Indoyon vs CA, amount equivalent to the 6 month
Cagayan de Oro City
March 12, 2013
Facts:
Indoyon was the municipal
treasurer of the Municipality of Lingig,
Surigao del Sur, SG 24. On Aug 8, 05,
upon examination of his cash and
accounts covering the period of June
22, 2005 to August 8, 2005, the COA
discovered that Indoyon had incurred
a cash shortage in the amount of
1.2M.
The auditor of COA sent a letter
to Indoyon demanding the immediate
production of the missing funds and
the submission of a written
explanation of the shortage.
Indoyon replied that he
personally used the amount of 652K to
put up a project to supplement his
income, and that he allowed other
municipal officials and employees to
use as cash advances his collections
as treasurer.
March 15, 2006- Indoyon was
formally charged for violation of COA
Rules and Regulations before the
Bureau of Local Government Finance
(BLGF), CAR, BXU.
Meanwhile, on Dec 6, 2006, a
letter was sent by the Regional Legal
and Adjudication-COA to the deputy
ombudsman. It recommended the
filing of a criminal case for
malversation and an administrative
case for grave misconduct against
Indoyon.
October 2, 2008- BLGF-DOF
found petitioner guilty of simple
neglect of duty. Penalty imposed is 6
months suspension from the service
without pay.
Oct 27, 2008- Indoyon file MR
seeking the modification of the
administrative penalty by reduction
from suspension to the imposition of a
fine. Request was partially granted.
Instead of suspension, a fine in an
salary of Indoyon was imposed on him.
Meanwhile, on Apr 30, 2008, the
Ombudsman found Indoyon guilty of
serious dishonesty and grave
misconduct. Penalty is dismissal from
service. Indoyon filed a MR alleging
that the jurisdiction over the same
case had first been acquired by BLGF-
DOF. He alleged that the 2 admin
cases were one and the same because
of their identity of issues, facts and
parties. However, Ombudsman denied
Indoyons MR.
Indoyon filed a petition for
review on Certiorari under Rule 43
with prayer for the issuance of a TRO
before the CA. Petition was dismissed
(june 5, 2009) on the ground that it
suffered not just one technical
infirmity, but several technical
infirmities that violated various
circulars and issuances of the court.
He again filed an MR praying for
the relaxation of the procedural rules
in the interest of substantial justice.
Denied on July 16, 2010.
In the meantime, on Feb 24,
2010, the BLGF directed the
implementation of the Ombudsmans
decision dismissing Indoyon from
service.
Hence this petition
ISSUE: WON the CA committed grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing
Indoyons petition under Rule 43 on
the ground of noncompliance with the
ROC and SC circulars. NO
Held: petition dismissed for being
devoid of merit.
The Sc emphasized that a writ
of certiorari is an extraordinary
prerogative writ that is never
demandable as a matter of right. To
warrant the issuance thereof, the
abuse of discretion must have been so
gross or grave, as when there was
such capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction or the exercise of power
was done in an arbitrary or despotic
manner.
The SC held here that the CA
was simply implementing the rules
that the SC have set forth in several
circulars, and that indeed, the petition
of Indoyon suffers several infirmities.
First, no affidavit of service was
attached to the petition, in violation of
SC revised circular No 1-88 and 19-91
and Section 13, Rule 13 of the ROC.
Second, the office of the
ombudsman is impleaded as nominal
party in the Petition for Review, which
is not in accordance with Section 6 of
Rule 43. Under Sec 6, the petition for
review shall state the full names of the
parties to the case, without
impleading the court or agencies
either as petitioners or respondents.
Lastly, the court of Origin, as
well as the case number and the title
of the action are not indicated in the
caption of the petition, which is in
contravention of SC Circular No 28-91.
Moreover, any violation of the said
circular shall be a cause for the
summary dismissal of the petition.