By Perfecto T. Raymundo
MANILA, Aug. 31 (PNA) — The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld a ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) dismissing from service a former Commission on Human Rights (CHR) commissioner Cecilia Rachel “Coco” V. Quisumbing for grave misconduct.
In an eight-page ruling dated Aug. 26, 2015 and written by Associate Justice Jane Aurora Lantion, the CA’s Special Sixth Division also found Quisumbing , a former newscaster of RPN Channel 9 and the daughter of retired Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing and the late CHR Chairperson Purificacion Quisumbing, to have violated Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713, or the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”.
The case arose from the complaint filed in September 2013 by Ma. Regina Eugenio, Elizabeth Diego-Buizon, Alexander Fernandez and Jesse Ayuste , all co-terminus employees of Quisumbing.
Eugenio alleged that she was hired by Quisumbing 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.
She claimed 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 filed before Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Eugenio alleged that 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.
Eugenio said she was promoted by Quisumbing with the condition that her salary increase differential would be given to the former commissioner.
She resigned from her job in July 2013 as she could not anymore bear the maltreatment and oppression supposedly accorded to her by Quisumbing until she eventually filed the complaint before 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 Aug. 26, 2015 decision, the CA ruled 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 CA 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.
Concurring in the ruling were Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan. (PNA)