Former LTFRB official’s sacking affirmed

The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman two years ago dismissing lawyer Samuel Aloysius Jardin as executive director of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board.

The appellate court, in a 22 September decision made available to media recently, ruled that the "disciplinary authority over presidential appointees, such as the petitioner in this case, belongs concurrently to the Office of the President and the Ombudsman."

Associate Justice Rex Bernardo Pascual penned the decision with the concurrence of two other justices.

"Thus, the Office of the Ombudsman has the full administrative disciplinary authority, including the power to determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty," the court said.

Jardin's dismissal from the service was ordered by the Ombudsman for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violations of the Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, as well as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

However, Jardin challenged the Ombudsman's decision before the CA.

Jardin was charged by the former head of the Department of Transportation on 3 April, 2019, with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for allegedly soliciting P4.8 million and P4.6 million from individuals for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and franchise.

He was also placed under a 90-day preventive suspension, and the department recommended that appropriate disciplinary action be instituted against Jardin "for causes arising from his alleged corrupt acts."

The Ombudsman on 22 December 2020, found Jardin guilty and ordered his dismissal as LTFRB executive director.

The CA said that contrary to the petitioner's claims, nothing was irregular in the institution of the administrative case against him and the Office of the Ombudsman correctly exercised its jurisdiction to hear the same."

It added: "Considering the credibility and weight of the evidence presented against the petitioner, We find that the offenses charged against him have been substantially proven."