Back

Emilio A. Gonzales III Vs. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit Vs. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al. [Concurring and Dissenting Opinion J. Perlas-Bernabe]

G.R. No. 196231 - EMILIO A. GONZALES III, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, acting through and represented by EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JOSE AMOR M. AMORANDO, Officer In Charge, Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, ATTY. RONALDO A. GERON, DIR. ROWENA TURINGAN-SANCHEZ, and ATTY. CARLITO D. CATAYONG,Respondents. _________________________________ G.R. No. 196232 - WENDELL BARRERAS-SULIT, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ATTY. DENNIS F. ORTIZ, ATTY. CARLO D. SULAY, and ATTY.FROILAND. MONTALBAN, JR., in their capacities as CHAIRMAN and MEMBERS of the OFFICE OF MALACANANG LEGAL AFFAIRS, Respondents. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion J. Perlas-Bernabe

G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232 | 2014-01-28

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

I concur with the ponencia in finding the Decision dated March 31, 2011 of the Office of the President of the Philippines (OP) to be patently erroneous considering that the acts therein attributed to petitioner Emilio A. Gonzales III (Gonzales), in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman, do not constitute betrayal of public trust. In the Court's Decision dated September 4, 2012 in the main,1 it was explained that the phrase "betrayal of public trust" refers to acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power,...