THE Court of Appeals has upheld the Office of the Ombudsman’s decision ordering the dismissal of lawyer Samuel Aloysius M. Jardin as executive director of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) after finding him administratively liable for soliciting money from individuals in exchange for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and franchise of more than P9 million.
In a 20-page decision penned by Associate Justice Rex Bernardo L. Pascual, the CA’s Special Eleventh Division denied the petition for review with a plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by Jardin, assailing the December 22, 2020 and March 17, 2021 orders of the Ombudsman. These orders found him guilty of grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violations of the Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) and Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Former Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade had recommended that the Office of the President (OP) institute disciplinary action against Jardin for alleged corrupt acts.
Prior to Jardin’s dismissal, Tugade placed the petitioner under preventive suspension for 90 days starting on April 3, 2019.
In February 2020, the OP referred Tugade’s memorandum to the Ombudsman for investigation and adjudication.
On March 6, 2020, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an order informing Jardin that an investigation against him has been initiated and directing him to submit his counteraffidavit and other controverting evidence.
On June 1, 2020 the petitioner submitted to the Ombudsman his response to the charges.
On December 22, 2020, the Ombudsman found Jardin guilty as charged and ordered his dismissal as LTFRB executive director.
Jardin elevated the case to the CA after his motion for reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman in an order issued on March 17, 2021.
Jardin argued before the CA that the Ombudsman improperly instituted the administrative proceedings since there was no sworn complaint submitted by Tugade, in violation of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman, Jardin said, erroneously found him guilty of the crimes charged despite the insufficiency and inadmissibility of the evidence presented during the proceedings, and that it committed reversible errors in giving due course to the administrative proceedings despite the existence of forum-shopping.
Tugade, however, maintained that the Ombudsman did not commit errors in instituting the administrative case as it was in accordance with Administrative Order No. 07, as amended.
Tugade insisted that the Ombudsman correctly dismissed the petitioner from service since the same is supported by substantial evidence.
The CA noted that the Ombudsman correctly found substantial evidence that the petitioner solicited and received millions of pesos in exchange for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience from the LTFRB, where he was Executive Director.