THE Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of the Ombudsman to dismiss from government service former human rights commissioner Cecilia Rachel “Coco” Quisumbing for grave misconduct and for violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
In a two-page resolution, the CA’s Former Special Sixteenth Division through Associate Justice Jane Aurora Lantion denied Quisumbing’s motion for reconsideration.
“After a thorough study of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, this court finds that the arguments raised in the subject motion have been amply discussed and passed upon in the assailed decision. There being no convincing or impelling reason for us to reconsider, alter, modify, much less, set aside our previous legal stand. We deny the motion for reconsideration,” the resolution reads.
Quisumbing was a former newscaster of RPN Channel 9 and the daughter of retired Supreme Court Justice Leonardo Quisumbing and the late CHR chairperson Purificacion Quisumbing.
In ruling against the appellant, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman ruling insofar as it pertains to the penalty of dismissal from the service for grave misconduct and violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 meted out Quisumbing.
Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan concurred with ruling.
The case arose from the complaint made by Ma. Regina Eugenio, Elizabeth Diego-Buizon, Alexander Fernandez and Jesse Ayuste who were co-terminus employees of Quisumbing at the CHR.
In September 2013, Eugenio filed a complaint against Quisumbing alleging that she was hired by the respondent in 2008 as CHR Administrative Aide VI and that during her more than four years of employment, she and her officemates were always mistreated, shouted at and humiliated by Quisumbing.
Quisumbing alleged that Quisumbing would always get very angry at them for no reason, and then suddenly change her mood as if nothing happened.
In her complaint before Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, Eugenio claimed Quisumbing even made a script to serve as a guide on how to answer her questions to the whole office staff and that the former commissioner maintained several ghost employees.
She narrated that she was promoted by Quisumbing with the condition that her salary increase differential would be given to the former commissioner.
In July 2013, Eugenio resigned from her job as she could not anymore bear the maltreatment and oppression supposedly accorded to her by Quisumbing until she eventually filed the complaint with the Ombudsman, which sided with her.
Quisumbing assailed the Ombudsman ruling before the CA, citing alleged errors on the part of the anti-graft body.
In its August 26, 2015 decision, the appeals court stated that the Ombudsman was right when it ruled against Quisumbing.
“Considering that mere acceptance of anything of monetary value in connection with the functions of a public office is prohibited act under Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713, no error can be imputed to the Ombudsman who found petitioner Quisumbing guilty under the said law,” the appellate court said.
“It is well-settled that findings of fact and conclusions by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, as in the present petition. Thus, we find no reason to overturn the [Ombudsman’s] assailed decision,” the CA added.