CASE DIGEST : OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. TEODORA T. HERMOSURA GR 207606 GAERLAN

 

[ G.R. No. 207606. February 16, 2022 ]

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. TEODORA T. HERMOSURA, RESPONDENT

FACTS : Brenda Ortiz, a lending business owner, engaged Teodora Hermosura, a Computer Operator at the University of Makati, as her loan agent after successfully transacting loans together. Hermosura was tasked to distribute funds, collect payments, and remit them to Ortiz for a 5% commission. In 2007, Hermosura stopped remitting collections, allegedly admitting to using the money for personal needs before disappearing. Ortiz demanded repayment of over ₱40 million but received none, prompting her to file a dishonesty complaint before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found Hermosura guilty, imposing penalties of forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from public service despite her prior retirement. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that since Hermosura’s optional retirement preceded the filing of the case and there was no proof it was meant to avoid liability, she could no longer be held administratively accountable. The Ombudsman appealed, arguing her retirement was linked to the pending complaints, but Hermosura maintained it was bona fide. The Supreme Court was thus tasked to decide whether the Ombudsman retained jurisdiction despite her retirement and whether she was administratively liable for dishonesty.

ISSUE :  whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to hear the administrative complaint against Teodora Hermosura despite her prior retirement from government service, and (2) whether Hermosura should be held administratively liable for dishonesty based on her alleged failure to remit collections from the lending business

HELD : The Supreme Court ruled that resignation or retirement cannot be used to evade administrative liability, emphasizing prior rulings that resignation after discovery of an offense suggests guilt. It held that unlike in Andutan, where the resignation was forced and occurred long before any complaint, Hermosura’s optional retirement came soon after receiving demand letters warning of legal action, showing intent to preempt charges. Thus, the Ombudsman properly exercised jurisdiction. On liability, the Court found Hermosura guilty of simple dishonesty, not serious dishonesty, since her failure to remit loan collections involved a private transaction and caused no direct government damage. Her penalty was reduced to the forfeiture of six months’ salary from her retirement benefits.