In a four-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, the CA’s Second Division said Pichay’s petition should be dismissed for being moot and academic in light of the July 4, 2011, decision of then-acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro dismissing him from the service.
The appellate court did not give credence to Pichay’s arguments that his petition should not be dismissed considering that the order of the then- acting Ombudsman has not become final and executory.
“It bears to note that the Office of the Ombudsman has already adjudged petitioner guilty of the administrative charges against him and ordered his dismissal from the service, which decision is immediately executory even pending appeal,” the CA said.
“As such, the herein assailed order of preventive suspension was effectively terminated and superseded by the decision dated July 4, 2011,” it added.
The CA added that the determination by the Court of the propriety of Pichay’s preventive suspension will be “inconsequential” and “not serve any useful purpose.”
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Elihu Ybañez.
In his petition filed before the CA, Pichay alleged that Casimiro committed grave abuse when he signed the preventive suspension order despite the fact that then-Ombudsman Maria Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez denied the preventive suspension plea twice.
Casimiro placed Pichay under a six-month preventive suspension without pay for the alleged unlawful investment of LWUA funds in the total amount of P780 million in the Express Savings Bank Inc. (ESBI) a private banking institution.
The suspension order stemmed from a complaint filed by LWUA officials, namely, Rustico Tutol, Luis DG. Estrada and Carmen Amores alleging that Pichay and the other respondents “violated the provisions of the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009, when they unlawfully disbursed LWUA funds by investing the total amount of P780 million in the said bank despite that it has been under rehabilitation by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas [BSP].”
They also alleged that the LWUA Board of Trustees unlawfully authorized the payment in favor of ESBI of the amount of P4 million “for subscription to the increase in the authorized capital stock of said bank.”
The complainants also said the respondents violated BSP Circular 309 when they failed to secure prior approval of the Monetary Board on the sale or transfer of shares before the disbursement of a total amount of P480 million, funds which resulted in the ownership or control by LWUA of 20 percent of ESBI’s voting stock.
