Casuela vs Office of the Ombudsman

8/9/2019 Casuela vs Office of the Ombudsman

1/12

[G.R. No. 112354. August 4, 1997.]

LUVIMINO P. CASUELA, !t"t"o#!$, %s. O&&ICE O& '(E OM)U*SMAN +# -OSE L.

VALERIANO, $!so#!#ts.

Pericles R. Casuela for petitioner.

SNOPSIS

Mary Elaine Bonito filed a complaint against private respondent Jose Valeriano, then an

employee of the POE. for allegedly receiving P!,"""."" for processing of her papers #ith the

POE. Bonito #ithdre# her complaint against Valeriano $ecause the amount #as returned to

her.

Valeriano #as furnished a copy of the complaint and #as given a period of %& hours from receipt

of the notice to file his #ritten ans#er. 'he POE dministrative Complaints Committee, of

#hich petitioner (uvimino Casuela #as a mem$er, set the case for hearing on the same day forthe reason that Bonito #as set to leave for overseas employment on that very day.

)n a *ecision signed $y then POE *eputy dministrator and Officer+in+Charge Manuel )mson,

Valeriano #as declared lia$le for acts of dishonesty and conduct pre-udicial to the $est interest

of the service. e #as meted out the penalty of *)/M)//(.

'he decision of the POE #as affirmed $y the /ecretary of (a$or and Employment. Valeriano

filed a complaint #ith the Office of the Om$udsman against Casuela and the other mem$ers of

the dministrative Complaints Committee for #illful violation of /ection 01, rticle )2 of the

Civil /ervice (a#.

)t #as the finding of the Om$udsman that the dministrative Complaints Committee, of #hich

Casuela #as a mem$er, in conducting the investigation a$out Bonito3s complaint on the very day

that Valeriano #as furnished a copy of said complaint, violated the five+day $ar rule imposed on

any administrative investigation as provided in /ection 04, Rule 2)V of the Rules implementing

E5ecutive Order 6o. &7&, other#ise 8no#n as the dministrative Code of 974%.

Casuela #as found lia$le for incompetence in the performance of duties and meted out a three+

month suspension pursuant to /ection &0:p;, Rule 2)V of the C/C Omni$us Rules and

Regulations. Casuela sought a reconsideration of the decision against him, $ut the Om$udsman

denied the motion. 'hus, the instant petition.

)t is a fact that Casuela participated in the investigation conducted $y the dministrative

Complaints Committee respecting Bonito3s complaint against Valeriano, #hich investigation #as

held on the very same day that Valeriano #as furnished a copy of Bonito3s complaint, in violation

of the five+day $ar rule mandated $y the Rules implementing E.O. 6o. &7&. 'he Om$udsman


2/12

correctly too8 cogni


3/12

these circumstances all the more highlight the underlying rationale for the five+day $ar rule on

the conduct of administrative investigation in disciplinary cases. ad petitioner religiously

a$ided $y the said rule and allo#ed things to ta8e their legal course had private respondent

Valeriano $een accorded the five :!; days he is entitled to under the la#, to clarify the pro$lem

#ith Bonito andHor prepare an ade=uate defense against the charges levelled against him in case

no settlement thereof is o$tained this conflict #ould not have gro#n into the long+dra#n

litigation that it no# is. 'he five+day $ar rule in conducting administrative investigation, #e

repeat, is an indispensa$le procedure in administrative investigation that $oth ena$les the parties

therein to e5plore the possi$ility of clarifying their pro$lems or misunderstandings and accords

the defendant therein ade=uate time to prepare a suita$le defense in case no settlement is

reached.

0. )*.? )*.? )*.? )6 'E ACE OA 'E A(FR6', @6*E6)B(E, )6*EAE6/)B(E

V)O(')O6 OA 'E A)VE+* BR R@(E @6*ER /EC')O6 04, R@(E 2)V OA 'E

R@(E/ )MP(EME6')6F BOOG V OA E.O. 6O. &7&, 'E PRE/@MP')O6 OA

REF@(R)' )6 'E PERAORM6CE OA OAA)C)( *@')E/ M@/' )E(*.

Petitioner $ela$ors the non+appreciation $y the Om$udsman of the presumption of regularity in

petitioner3s conduct of proceedings in petitioner3s favor. Petitioner, ho#ever, is apparently

$eholden to an evidentiary rule that is vulnera$le to clear and convincing evidence in negation of

such a presumption. >e peruse from the records of this case that there has $een proffered clear

and convincing evidence to the effect that petitioner conducted an investigation on Bonito3s

complaint against private respondent Valeriano on the very same day the complaint #as served

on Valeriano, not to mention the fact that on the very same day, said complaint #as #ithdra#n $y

Bonito under a duly e5ecuted ffidavit of *esistance. 'his is a flagrant, undenia$le, indefensi$le

violation of the five+day $ar rule under /ection 04, Rule 2)V of the Rules )mplementing Boo8 Vof E.O. 6o. &7&. )n the face thereof, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official

duties must yield.

I. )*.? )*.? )*.? 'E CRFE/ OA AOR@M+/OPP)6F 6* V)O(')O6 OA 'E

R@(E/ OA J@R)/*)C')O6 RE B/O(@'E( @6AO@6*E*? C/E ' BR. 'he

Om$udsman never pretended to have -urisdiction over the issue of the validity of the decision of

the POE deputy administrator adopting the recommendations of the dministrative Complaints

Committee that led to the dismissal of private respondent Valeriano. )n fact, the issue of the

validity of that decision #as never put in issue $efore the Om$udsman. >hat Valeriano sought

$efore the Om$udsman #as the imposition of administrative sanctions upon petitioner and theother mem$ers of the dministrative Complaints Committee #hose actuations during the

investigation of Bonito3s complaint struc8 Valeriano as oppressive, ar$itrary and un-ust and

violative of su$sisting la#s on the conduct of pu$lic officers in the performance of their official

duties. Precisely Valeriano appealed the decision of the POE deputy administrator to the

/ecretary of (a$or and Employment $ecause the latter is vested #ith the supervisory and revie#


4/12

po#ers over the POE. s such, the charges of forum+shopping and violation of the rules on

-urisdiction are a$solutely unfounded.

* E C I S I O N

ERMO/)/)M, JR., J p

'his is a petition for certiorari praying for the reversal and setting aside of the Resolution 9 dated

July &&, 9770 and the Order & dated Octo$er !, 9770, $oth issued $y the dministrative

d-udication Bureau of the Office of the Om$udsman :hereafter, the Om$udsman;, imposing a

three+month suspension on petitioner #ho #as found lia$le for inefficiency and incompetence in

the performance of official duties. 0

'he undisputed facts of the case are the follo#ing

On Ae$ruary 1, 977&, Mary Elaine Bonito filed a complaint against private respondent Jose

Valeriano, then an employee of the Philippine Overseas Employment dministration :POE;,for allegedly receiving P!,""" for the processing of her papers #ith the POE . . .

On Ae$ruary 1, 977&, Bonito #ithdre# her complaint against Valeriano for the reason that the

amount #as returned through Romeo /olis, $rother+in+la# of Bonito. cdasia

Private respondent Valeriano #as furnished a copy of the complaint on Ae$ruary 1, 977& and #as

given a period of %& hours from receipt of the notice to file his #ritten ans#er.

On Ae$ruary 1, 977&, the POE dministrative Complaints Committee, composed of tty.

Vicente Jariol as Chairman, and ttys. Josefina Bilar and Dpetitioner (uvimino Casuela as

mem$ers, set the case for hearing at 99"" a.m. on the same day for the reason that Bonito #asset to leave for overseas employment at 9"9! p.m. of that day . . . Petitioner #as preventively

suspended effective Ae$ruary 9", 977& . . .

'he case #as set for further hearings on Ae$ruary 9I, 94, &9, March &, 9" and 97, 977&. On

Ae$ruary &9, 977&, Romeo /olis, $rother+in+la# of Bonito, and 6ony l$arracin, e5ecuted a

s#orn statement 3a$solving Mr. Jose (. Valeriano for #hatever lia$ility $e it administratively

andHor #hatsoever, for his role only #as to advise us that POE gives assistance to all overseas

contract #or8ers3 . . .

)n a *ecision dated May I, 977&, signed $y then POE *eputy dministrator and Officer+in+Charge Manuel )mson, private respondent #as 3declared lia$le for acts of dishonesty and conduct

pre-udicial to the $est interest of the service. ccordingly, private respondent is ad-udged and

meted out the penalty of *)/M)//( from the service pursuant to /ection &0 :a;, Rule 2)V of

the C/C Omni$us Rules3 . . .

'he decision of the POE #as affirmed $y the /ecretary of (a$or and Employment in an Order

dated 6ovem$er &%, 977& . . .


5/12

On ugust 9&, 977&, private respondent filed a complaint #ith the Office of the Om$udsman

against petitioner and the other mem$ers of the dministrative ComplaintDs Committee for

#illful violation of /ection 01, rticle )2 of the Civil /ervice (a#.

Petitioner and the other mem$ers of the dministrative ComplaintDs Committee filed #ith the

Om$udsman a -oint comment on the complaint, alleging that they acted #ithin the scope of theirfunctions and in good faith. I

fter considering all the evidence, it #as not lost on the Om$udsman that the dministrative

Complaints Committee, of #hich petitioner #as a mem$er, in conducting the investigation

respecting Bonito3s complaint on the very day that private respondent Valeriano #as furnished a

copy of said complaint, violated the five+day $ar imposed on any administrative investigation as

provided in /ection 04, Rule 2)V of the Rules )mplementing Boo8 V of E5ecutive Order 6o.

&7&, other#ise 8no#n as the dministrative Code of 974%. 'hus ruled the Om$udsman

. . . On Ae$ruary 1, 977&, Valeriano #as furnished a copy of the complaint+affidavit #ith theinstruction to file his ans#er #ithin seventy+t#o :%&; hours from receipt thereof. 'his

not#ithstanding, the hearing of the case #as set at 990" am. of the same day, Ae$ruary 1, 9770,

#ith the #arning that should Valeriano fail to attend the scheduled hearing, it #ill $e considered

as a #aiver for Valeriano to cross+e5amine the complainant and her #itnesses and the committee

#ill proceed #ith the hearing for the reception of evidence of the complainant . . .

555 555 555

. . . Respondent Valeriano #as furnished a copy of the complaint on Ae$ruary 1, 9770. >hile he

#as given %& hours from receipt to su$mit his ans#er, the hearing of the complaint #as held on

the same day in flagrant violation of Rule 2)V, /ec. 04 of the Rules )mplementing Boo8 V of

E5ecution Order 6o. &7& and other pertinent Civil /ervice (a#s, #hich provides

3/ec. 04. 'he investigation shall $e held not earlier than five days nor later than ten days

from the date of receipt of the respondent3s ans#er.3 . . .

/uch acts should not $e countenanced. s la#yers, the mem$ers of the dministrative

Complaints Committee should $e familiar #ith e5isting rules in the hearing of administrative

cases. 'he act of the Committee in conducting hearing on the case even $efore respondent could

file his ans#er sho#s e5cessive use of authority if not unla#ful $ehaviour, inefficiency and

incompetence in the performance of official duties. !

Petitioner #as conse=uently found lia$le for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance

of official duties and meted out the penalty of three :0; months suspension pursuant to /ection &0

:p;, Rule 2)V of the C/C Omni$us Rules and Regulations.

Petitioner sought a reconsideration of the aforecited Resolution on the follo#ing grounds :9;

that the charge against him as set forth in private respondent3s complaint #as one for oppression


6/12

and rendering a -udgment through negligence? :&; that private respondent #as not deprived of his

right to due process? :0; that the presumption of regularity of the committee proceedings should

prevail? and :I; that private respondent3s complaint #as frivolous and patently #ithout merit,

thus -ustifying an outright dismissal thereof. 1

'he Om$udsman, ho#ever, #as utterly unconvinced and forth#ith denied petitioner3s motion forreconsideration. /uch denial #as contained in the Order dated Octo$er !, 9770 and #as #orded

in this #ise

DPetitioner Casuela argued that since the complaint against him #as limited to oppression and

rendering a -udgment through negligence, he cannot $e held lia$le for inefficiency and

incompetence in the performance of official duties. 'his claim is no more than a vagrant

assertion for the simple reason that it is #ell settled in this -urisdiction that the real nature of the

offense charged is determined not from the caption or pream$le of the information nor from the

specification of the la# alleged to have $een violated $ut $y the actual recital of the facts in the

complaint. . . . )n the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the initial hearing #as conducted$y the Committee $efore Dpetitioner . . . could file his ans#er. )t is also an incontroverti$le fact

that the initial hearing of the case #as made in total disregard of /ec. 04 of the Rules

)mplementing Boo8 V of E5ecutive Order 6o. &7& #hich clearly sho#s inefficiency and

incompetence in the performance of official duties on the part of herein respondent.

)t is also argued that Dpetitioner, as a mem$er of the dministrative Complaints Committee, did

not deprive complainant of his right to due process . . . >hen the mem$ers of the Committee

acted immediately upon the complaint of Ms. Bonito . . . they acted perfectly #ithin the $ounds

of their duties . . . 'he innocence or guilt of Dprivate respondent Valeriano and as to #hether or

not due process #as accorded him is not the issue in this case $ut #hether or not there issomething amiss in the conduct of the mem$ers of the Committee in the investigation of the

case. s earlier stated, it is an undisputed fact that the initial hearing #as conducted even $efore

complainant could file his ans#er and the same #as made in total disregard of /ec. 04 of the

Rules )mplementing Boo8 V of E5ecutive Order 6o. &7&. >hile it is a lauda$le act on the part of

the mem$ers of the Committee to immediately act on a complaint to protect and give immediate

assistance to Ailipino overseas #or8ers, it is e=ually deplora$le not to recogni


7/12

authority if not unla#ful $ehavior, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official

duties.

'his complaint is not frivolous . . . 'his Office cannot overstress the need for a more circumspect

and proper $ehavior on the part of . . . hearing officers upon #hom the life of a man depends.

555 555 555

s stated earlier, #hile this Office fully appreciates the . . . giving Dof immediate assistance and

protection to overseas #or8ers % . . . it is e=ually deplora$le not to give protection to the rights of

the people $eing complained of. )t is the perception of this Office that /ec. 04 of the

)mplementing Rules of Boo8 V of E5ecutive Order 6o. &7& is mandatory and not merely

directory.

/till una$le to accept the postulations of the Om$udsman, petitioner filed the instant petition for

certiorari #ith the follo#ing assignment of errors

)

'E OAA)CE OA 'E OMB@*/M6 ERRE* )6 O(*)6F 'E PE')')O6ER ()B(E

AOR C'/ >)C 'E (''ER >/ 6O' AAOR*E* 'E OPPOR'@6)' 'O

E2P()6 *@R)6F 'E ER)6F OA 'E C/E F)6/' )M 6* FRVE(

B@/E* )'/ *)/CRE')O6 B M)6')6)6F )6CO6/)/'E6' 'EOR)E/ O6 'E

()B)()' OA PE')')O6ER.

))

'E OAA)CE OA 'E OMB@*/M6 ERRE* )6 A)6*)6F PE')')O6ER ()B(E)6/M@C / 'E OAA)CE OA 'E OMB@*/M6 )'/E(A /''E* )6 )'/ OR*ER

'' 'E )MME*)'E )6VE/')F')O6 OA 'E C/E F)6/' PR)V'E

RE/PO6*E6' B 'E *M)6)/'R')VE COMP()6'/ COMM)''EE >/

(@*B(E C'. aisadc

)))

'E OAA)CE OA 'E OMB@*/M6 ERRE* )6 6O' F)V)6F *@E CRE*E6CE 'O

PE')')O6ER3/ *EAE6/E OA PRE/@MP')O6 OA REF@(R)' )6 'E

PERAORM6CE OA P@B()C *@')E/.

)V

'E OAA)CE OA 'E OMB@*/M6 ERRE* )6 6O' V)6F O@'R)F'(

*)/M)//E* 'E COMP()6' F)6/' PE')')O6ER AOR BE)6F >)'O@' MER)'.

'he petition lac8s merit.


8/12

)

Petitioner $egrudges the Om$udsman for finding him guilty of violating /ection 04, Rule 2)V of

the Rules )mplementing Boo8 V of E.O. 6o. &7&, 4 #hich, he claims, #as a virtual non+issue

insofar as private respondent Valeriano3s complaint #as concerned as said violation #as not

alleged therein. s such, petitioner claims not to have $een duly informed of the true chargesagainst him and accorded the opportunity to refute the same.

n e5amination of private respondent3s complaint, ho#ever, reveals that the private respondent

did allege Dthat on Ae$ruary 1, 977&, ), Jose (. Valeriano, received an 3alleged complaint3 from

a former neigh$or, a certain May Elaine O. Bonito . . . dated Ae$. !, 977& 7 and Dthat . . . the

entire hearing of the alleged complaint . . . $egan on Ae$ruary 1, 977&. 9" 'his only sho#s that

the service of Bonito3s complaint upon private respondent Valeriano on Ae$ruary 1, 977& and the

commencement of the investigation on that same day, #ere circumstances actually alleged $y

private respondent Valeriano in his complaint and #hich may thus $e ta8en cogni


9/12

@nder the foregoing constitutional provision, the Om$udsman may investigate a matter that

tends to sho# that an act is illegal, un-ust, improper or inefficient motu proprio, or even if not

raised $y a complainant. ence, even if private respondent did not e5pressly raise the non+

compliance of the provisions of the dministrative Code, the Om$udsman may impose the

proper sanctions for the non+compliance. s noted $y the Om$udsman in his Order dated

Octo$er !, 9770 denying petitioner3s motion for reconsideration, 3there is something amiss in the

conduct of the mem$ers of the Committee in the investigation of the case Dagainst private

respondent Valeriano.3 'he fla# in the investigation #as the cause for the imposition of the

penalty. ence, contrary to the contentions of petitioner, the Om$udsman did not maintain

inconsistent theories on the lia$ility of petitioner. is lia$ility as #ell as those of the other

mem$ers of the dministrative Complaints Committee arose $y reason of the non+compliance

#ith the provisions of the dministrative Code on administrative disciplinary proceeding. 99

Petitioner s8irts the 8ernel issue of his undisputed participation in an investigation conducted in

violation of the five+day $ar rule under /ection 04, Rule 2)V of the Rules )mplementing Boo8 V

of E.O. 6o. &7&, and conveniently har8s on the alleged violation of his right to due process.

Petitioner3s evasive stance, ho#ever, does not impede our clear perception of the fact that

petitioner did participate in the investigation conducted $y the dministrative Complaints

Committee respecting Bonito3s complaint against private respondent Valeriano, #hich

investigation #as held on the very same day that private respondent Valeriano #as furnished a

copy of Bonito3s complaint, in violation of the five+day $ar rule mandated $y the Rules

)mplementing E.O. 6o. &7&. 'he Om$udsman correctly too8 cogni


10/12

Petitioner ma8es capital of the o$iter dictum of the Om$udsman to the effect that the immediate

action underta8en $y the dministrative Complaints Committee on Bonito3s complaint, #as a

lauda$le act. Petitioner reasons out that, since the said committee3s action #as even praised $y

the Om$udsman, the latter erred in finding petitioner guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in

the performance of official duties.

>e are a$solutely unstirred $y these argumentations.

)n the first place, the Om$udsman3s statements #ere ta8en out of conte5t. )n their complete form,

the Om$udsman3s statements read, to #it

. . . D)t is an undisputed fact that the initial hearing #as conducted even $efore complainant

could file his ans#er and the same #as made in total disregard of /ec. 04 of the Rules

)mplementing Boo8 V of E5ecutive Order 6o. &7&. >hile it is a lauda$le act on the part of the

mem$ers of the Committee to immediately act on a complaint to protect and give immediate

assistance to Ailipino overseas #or8ers, it is e=ually deplora$le not to recognihile this Office fully appreciates the lauda$le acts of the respondents in giving immediate

assistance and protection to overseas #or8ers, $ut it is e=ually deplora$le not to give protection

to the rights of people $eing complained of. . . . 9&

)n other #ords, the Om$udsman #as not per se praising petitioner3s acts? rather, the Om$udsman

had, $efore critici


11/12

Bonito3s grievances and ta8e her testimony $efore she departs for her foreign assignment,

not#ithstanding the prohi$ition under /ection 04, Rule 2)V of the Rules )mplementing Boo8 V

of E.O. 6o. &7& against holding any investigation earlier than five :!; days from petitioner3s

receipt of Bonito3s complaint.

ll these circumstances all the more highlight the underlying rationale for the five+day $ar ruleon the conduct of administrative investigation in disciplinary cases. ad petitioner religiously

a$ided $y the said rule and allo#ed things to ta8e their legal course had private respondent

Valeriano $een accorded the five :!; days he is entitled to under the la#, to clarify the pro$lem

#ith Bonito andHor prepare an ade=uate defense against the charges levelled against him in case

no settlement thereof is o$tained this conflict #ould not have gro#n into the long+dra#n

litigation that it no# is. 'he five+day $ar rule in conducting administrative investigation, #e

repeat, is an indispensa$le procedure in administrative investigation that $oth ena$les the parties

therein to e5plore the possi$ility of clarifying their pro$lems or misunderstandings and accords

the defendant therein ade=uate time to prepare a suita$le defense in case no settlement is

reached.

)))

Petitioner $ela$ors the non+appreciation $y the Om$udsman of the presumption of regularity in

petitioner3s conduct of proceedings in petitioner3s favor. Petitioner, ho#ever, is apparently

$eholden to an evidentiary rule that is vulnera$le to clear and convincing evidence in negation of

such a presumption.

>e peruse from the records of this case that there has $een proffered clear and convincing

evidence to the effect that petitioner conducted an investigation on Bonito3s complaint againstprivate respondent Valeriano on the very same day the complaint #as served on Valeriano, not to

mention the fact that on the very same day, said complaint #as #ithdra#n $y Bonito under a

duly e5ecuted ffidavit of *esistance. 'his is a flagrant, undenia$le, indefensi$le violation of the

five+day $ar rule under /ection 04, Rule 2)V of the Rules )mplementing Boo8 V of E.O. 6o.

&7&. )n the face thereof, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, must

yield.

)V

Ainally, petitioner contends that the complaint of private respondent Valeriano should have $een

dismissed outright $y the Om$udsman $ecause, at the time of the filing thereof, there #as

pending $efore the /ecretary of (a$or and Employment, an appeal from the decision of the

POE deputy administrator finding Valeriano guilty of *ishonesty and Conduct Pre-udicial to

the Best )nterest of the /ervice and correspondingly punishing him #ith dismissal from the

service. 'he outright dismissal of private respondent Valeriano3s complaint, petitioner insists, is

totally -ustified $y the illegal assumption $y the Om$udsman of revie# po#ers over the POE,

#hich revie# po#ers are properly vested in the /ecretary of (a$or and Employment. Petitioner


12/12

adds that the su$-ect matter of $oth Valeriano3s complaint $efore the Om$udsman and Valeriano3s

appeal to the /ecretary of (a$or and Employment, $eing the sole and same issue of the validity

of the decision of the POE dismissing petitioner from the service, the Om$udsman could not

validly and legally assume -urisdiction over Valeriano3s complaint #ithout violating the most

$asic principles in -urisdiction and forum shopping.

>e disagree.

'he Om$udsman never pretended to have -urisdiction over the issue of the validity of the

decision of the POE deputy administrator adopting the recommendations of the dministrative

Complaints Committee that led to the dismissal of private respondent Valeriano. )n fact, the issue

of the validity of that decision, #as never put in issue $efore the Om$udsman. >hat Valeriano

sought $efore the Om$udsman #as the imposition of administrative sanctions upon petitioner

and the other mem$ers of the dministrative Complaints Committee #hose actuations during the

investigation of Bonito3s complaint struc8 Valeriano as oppressive, ar$itrary and un-ust and

violative of su$sisting la#s on the conduct of pu$lic officers in the performance of their officialduties. Precisely Valeriano appealed the decision of the POE deputy administrator to the

/ecretary of (a$or and Employment $ecause the latter is vested #ith the supervisory and revie#

po#ers over the POE. s such, the charges of forum shopping and violation of the rules on

-urisdiction are a$solutely unfounded.

ll told, #e find the Om$udsman to have issued the herein assailed Resolution dated July &&,

9770 and Order dated Octo$er !, 9770 in accordance #ith the prevailing la# and -urisprudence.

>EREAORE, the instant petition is EREB *)/M)//E*.

Costs against petitioner.

/O OR*ERE*.

6arvasa, C .J ., Padilla, Regalado, *avide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Gapunan,

Arancisco and 'orres, Jr., JJ ., concur.

Mendo

Casuela vs Office of the Ombudsman

Documents

Transcript of Casuela vs Office of the Ombudsman