OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. CA and BARRIGA
G.R. No. 172224. January 26, 2011
Facts:
Sometime in 2000, Sonia Q. Pua,
a Municipal Councilor of Carmen, Cebu, filed a complaint with the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, alleging thatMayorVirgilio E. Villamor, Municipal
TreasurerBontia, and respondent Municipal AccountantBarriga, entered into
several irregular and anomalous transactions in their official capacity.
In a Decision dated 28 August
2002, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas found Barriga guilty of
misconduct and imposed on her the penalty of six months suspension from the
service.
Upon review, petitioner Office
of the Ombudsman modified the decision and found Barriga guilty of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed on her the penalty
of suspension for one year.Barriga filed a motion for reconsideration which
petitioner denied.
Later, in an Order dated 13
November 2002, petitioner directed the municipal mayor of Carmen, Cebu to
implement the decision dated 28 August 2002.
Barriga filed a petition for
review with the CA which denied the petition for lack of merit.Barriga then
elevated the case to the Supreme Court which also denied the petition. MR and
second MR was likewise denied.
After a month, petitioner,
through the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, again directed the
municipal mayor of Carmen, Cebu to implement the Order
dated 13 November 2002.
Barriga made a request that the
implementation of the penalty of one-year suspension be held in abeyance
pending the issuance of the entry of judgment by this Supreme Court. The
request was denied by petitioner.
However, Barriga, in order to
delay the implementation of her suspension from service elevated the case once
again to the CA. The CA in rendering a favorable decision in favor of Barriga
nullified the Ombudsman’s orders from implementing its decision. CA said that
the immediate implementation of petitioner’s Order dated 13 November 2002 was
premature pending resolution of the appeal. Since Republic Act No. 6770 or the
Ombudsman Act of 1989 gives parties the right to appeal then such right also
generally carries with it the right to stay these decisions pending appeal.
Thus, the CA concluded that the acts of petitioner cannot be permitted nor
tolerated.
Pursuant to the CA’s Resolution
dated 16 June 2005, the municipal mayor of Carmen, Cebu reinstated Barriga as municipal
accountant.
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and raised the issue of finality of the Ombudsman’s Decision
dated 28 August 2002. The motion was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals
gravely abused its discretion in nullifying the orders of the Office of the
Ombudsman to the municipal mayor of Carmen, Cebu for the immediate
implementation of the penalty of suspension from service of respondent Barriga
even though the case was pending on appeal.
Held:
Yes. Section 7, Rule III of
Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, states:
Section 7. Finality and
execution of decision.- Where the respondent is
absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is
public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine
equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and
unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions
set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.
An appeal shall not stop the
decision from being executory. In case the penalty is
suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be
considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary
and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension
or removal.
A decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The
Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly
enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer
without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to
remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary
action against said officer.
It is clear from the provision
that when a public official has been found guilty of an administrative charge
by the Office of the Ombudsman and the penalty imposed is suspension for more
than a month, an appeal may be made to the CA. However, such appeal shall
not stop the decision from being executory and the implementation of the
decision follows as a matter of course.
The CA is incorrect. The
provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman is clear
that an appeal by a public official from a decision meted out by the
Ombudsman shall not stop the decision from being executory. In Office of
the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Macabulos, we held that decisions of the
Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal in the CA.
Thus, the Ombudsman’s order
imposing on Barriga the penalty of suspension from office for one year without
pay is immediately executory even pending appeal in the Court of Appeals.
Petition granted. The
Resolutions dated 20 February 2006 and 16 June 2005 of the Court of Appeals in were
set aside. The modified Order dated 28 August 2002 of the Office of the
Ombudsman suspending Dinah C. Barriga from government service for one year
without pay was reinstated. Since Dinah C. Barriga already partially served her
suspension from government service, the Municipal Mayor of Carmen, Cebu wasdirected
to implement with dispatch the remaining balance of number of days of
suspension from office not yet served by Barriga.
0
Comments
