CA reverses dismissal of ex-special prosecutor Villa-Ignacio over dishonesty

The Court of Appeals has set aside and reversed an Ombudsman ruling against former Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio that found him guilty of dishonesty for the non-disclosure of an administrative case filed against him in the past.

 

In a 21-page decision, the CA Fourth Division Villa-Ignacio's failure to disclose in his 2005 Personal Data Sheet an administrative case where he was reprimanded by the Supreme Court "does not constitute betrayal of public trust... [and] does not fit the legal description of the phrase."

 

The case stemmed from an affidavit complaint filed by Luz Quinones-Marcos on April 19, 2007 with the Ombudsman’s Internal Affairs Board (IAB) against Villa-Ignacio for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of t he service.

 

Marcos alleged that in October 2005, Villa-Ignacio, who was applying for a post at the Ombudsman at the time, ticked off the box for “No" in the part of his PDS with a question whether he had ever been charged or convicted for any criminal or administrative offenses.

 

Marcos however said Villa-Ignacio had been charged administratively when he was still presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 143 over supposed unreasonable delay in resolving a motion for reconsideration filed before his sala in November 1997.

The SC eventually reprimanded him.

 

Villa-Ignacio had denied the accusations, saying they were part of a “systematic and continuous effort to pressure” him to resign as special prosecutor. He also said he was not being dishonest when he filled out his PDS, acknowledging that he might merely have committed an “honest mistake”.

 

Villa-Ignacio insisted that he had disclosed all the pending criminal and administrative cases filed against him that he remembered.

 

In December 2009, the IAB found Villa-Ignacio guilty of the charges. HIs motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting him to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals with a petition for review.

 

In his plea before the CA, Villa-Ignacio insisted the IAB or the Ombudsman has no authority to dismiss him under Section 8(2) of Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989. He said only the president can remove him from office and only after he has been accorded due process.

 

He also added that there was insufficient evidence against him and that the grounds for his dismissal were not legal under RA 6770.

 

Villa-Ignacio said there was no malice and falsehood when he accomplished his PDS.

 

He also criticized the composition of the IAB for being illegal. He said then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez no longer had authority in her office since she was only supposed to serve the remaining term of Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo who resigned in 2005, or until October 2009. The assailed IAB order dismissing Villa-Ignacio was issued December 2009.

 

In its ruling, the CA disagreed with Villa-Ignacio on the issue of jurisdiction, saying the Ombudsman has concurrent power with the president to remove a special prosecutor from service, citing the SC decision in Gonzales v. Office of the President.

 

“After an assiduous evaluation of the record at hand, we find that the act complained of does not constitute betrayal of public trust,” ruled the CA.

 

“The severe penalty of dismissal is not automatically meted out in cases of non-disclosure in the PDS,” said the CA, adding that the past cases cited by the IAB in dismissing Villa-Ignacio ‘[did not view] such act as one constituting betrayal of public trust.”

 

Betrayal of public trust is one of the grounds for the dismissal of a special prosecutor, along with culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

 

In its decision, the CA also said that the "accessory penalties imposed by the IAB should be vacated in view of the foregoing disquisitions." — JDS, GMA News