On October 11, 2019, the Office of the Ombudsman endorsed to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) the Ombudsman’s decision finding Atty. Vitriolo guilty of simple misconduct and is meted the penalty of suspension from the service for three months without pay.

The suspension order stemmed from the complaint filed by former CHED Chairperson Patricia B. Licuanan against Vitriolo. In her complaint, Licuanan alleged that Vitriolo issued a memorandum recommending to CHED Region Office the issuance of a Provisional Permit in favor of one private school in contravention of Commission en Banc Resolution which disapproved said school’s application.

In its decision, the Ombudsman said that “Vitriolo issued the Memorandum without due regard to the policies and guidelines of CHED.”

The dispositive portion of the decision in OMB-C-A17-0094, “Licuanan v. Vitriolo,” for immediate implementation is hereby quoted:

“WHEREFORE, respondent Julito D. Vitriolo is hereby found guilty of Simple Misconduct and is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM THE SERVICE FOR THREE MONTHS WITHOUT PAY.”

           Atty. Julito Vitriolo was previously dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman on the alleged irregularities at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM). The administrative liability of Vitriolo anent the charges hurled against him by Felix has yet to be resolved by the SC. In fact, it is a live issue which is still pending determination in the separate pending case docketed as G.R. No. 237129 entitled “Oliver B. Felix v. Julito D. Vitriolo.

“In the event that the penalty can no longer be enforced against respondent due to separation from services, the penalty of fine equivalent to his latest salary for three months shall be imposed, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondent’s retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from the office.”

 

(signed)

J. PROSPERO E. DE VERA III, DPA
Chairman
Commission on Higher Education

Download PDF version

Motion for Reconsideration Vitriolo Vs. Jaro

SC Disallows Ombudsman to Intervene for Delayed Filing of Motion