Herrera v. Bohol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Renato F. Herrera, then Director III at the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), approved a request to shift the item number of respondent Plaridel Elmer J. Bohol, a Senior Agrarian Reform Program Officer, from Fund 108 to Fund 101. Respondent drew his salary under Fund 101 until informed that his item had been recalled and given to another employee, Gregoria Ancheta. Respondent protested to petitioner, who referred him to his immediate supervisor, BARIE Director Sharon Joy Berlin-Chao, allegedly responsible for the recall. Respondent Bohol filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, charging petitioner Herrera with Grave Misconduct for allegedly giving unwarranted benefit to Gregoria Ancheta and/or Inefficiency and Incompetence for illegally recalling his item. Procedural History: The Ombudsman found petitioner Herrera guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a penalty of one (1) month suspension without pay. The Ombudsman's decision was declared final and executory. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the Ombudsman's decision was premature and contesting factual findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman's decision, citing Lapid v. Court of Appeals and ruling that the Ombudsman's decision was unappealable. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, contending that the penalty of suspension for one month without pay is appealable, as it differs from "suspension of not more than one month’s salary" mentioned in R.A. No. 6770. He also argued that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman's findings that respondent was not informed of the recall and that petitioner failed to take corrective measures. Petitioner insisted he was assured by Director Chao of prior notification and that he directed Chao to act on the matter.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty of suspension for one (1) month without pay imposed by the Ombudsman is final and unappealable under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman's findings that respondent was not informed of the recall and that petitioner failed to take corrective measures.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 15, 2002, and the Resolution dated September 19, 2002, of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the penalty: The Court held that the phrase "suspension of not more than one month’s salary" in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 includes "suspension for one month without pay." The Court clarified that there is no penalty of "suspension of salary" in administrative law; rather, it is the official who is suspended, with corresponding withholding of salaries based on the "no work, no pay" principle. Furthermore, the Court cited Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, which explicitly states that decisions imposing suspension of not more than one month are final and unappealable. The Court distinguished the present case from Lapid v. Court of Appeals, where the penalty imposed was a one-year suspension, not one month. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is final and unappealable, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals. On the factual findings: The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the petitioner's other contentions, which involved factual issues. The Supreme Court accords due respect and weight to the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case. Thus, the findings that respondent was not informed of the recall and that petitioner did not take adequate corrective measures were sustained.
Main Doctrine
A decision of the Ombudsman imposing a penalty of suspension for one month without pay is considered final and unappealable under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, as the phrase "suspension of not more than one month’s salary" encompasses such penalty, following the principle of "no work, no pay."