Tel-Equen v. Datumanong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jimmie F. Tel-Equen, District Engineer of Mountain Province, DPWH Cordillera Administrative Region, was charged with dishonesty, falsification of official documents, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of office rules and regulations, and conduct prejudicial to the service before the Office of the Ombudsman. This stemmed from the anomalous payment of P553,900.00 for bailey bridge components. On March 28, 1994, the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman found Tel-Equen and others guilty and ordered their dismissal. After denial of motions for reconsideration, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Fabian v. Desierto. On March 2, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Ombudsman's decision, dismissing Tel-Equen and two co-accused. Tel-Equen appealed this decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 144694). Procedural History: While G.R. No. 144694 was pending, then Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) issued a Memorandum Order on October 5, 2001, dismissing Tel-Equen from the service. This dismissal was based on the Ombudsman's order and the Court of Appeals' decision, which Datumanong stated were immediately executory as there was no injunction or restraining order from the Supreme Court. The Petition: Tel-Equen filed the present petition to cite Secretary Datumanong in contempt of court, alleging that the issuance of the Memorandum Order despite the pending appeal constituted a contumacious act, an abuse of discretion, and an unlawful interference with court proceedings, thereby impeding the administration of justice.
Issue(s)
Whether Secretary Datumanong committed contempt of court by issuing the Memorandum Order dismissing petitioner while his appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. Whether the Memorandum Order issued by Secretary Datumanong was immediately executory.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Secretary Datumanong cannot be held in contempt of court. The proper remedy for petitioner was to elevate the alleged error to the higher court for review and correction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of contempt of court: The Court held that the power to declare a person in contempt is inherent in courts and must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, not for retaliation or vindication. The issuance of the Memorandum Order by Secretary Datumanong was not found to be a contumacious conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Contumacious conduct implies willfulness, bad faith, or a deliberate intent to cause injustice, which was absent in this case. The Court noted that if the dismissal were to be immediately enforced, it should have happened after the Ombudsman's initial decision in 1994, not after the Court of Appeals' affirmation in 2000. Therefore, the issuance of the Memorandum Order was considered, at most, an error of judgment or a result of confusion regarding the rules on the execution of decisions pending appeal. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's remedy was not contempt but to seek review from a higher court. On the immediacy of execution: The Court clarified the executory nature of decisions from the Office of the Ombudsman. Citing Section 27 of R.A. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, the Court explained that decisions imposing penalties of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month's salary are final and unappealable. However, in all other cases, including dismissal, the decision becomes final after the lapse of the ten-day period for appeal if no appeal is perfected, or upon finality of the appellate court's decision. The Court stressed that the right to appeal generally carries with it the stay of the decision pending appeal, otherwise, the essential nature of appealability would be rendered nugatory. The Court also considered the amendment to Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, which, while stating that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, provides for payment of back salaries and emoluments if the appellant wins on appeal. This procedural amendment was deemed retroactive and did not violate any vested right of the petitioner, as he was considered under preventive suspension and would be compensated if he prevailed.
Main Doctrine
A public official cannot be held in contempt of court for issuing an order that, at most, constitutes an error of judgment or a result of confusion regarding the rules on execution of decisions pending appeal, especially in the absence of malice or wrongful conduct. The proper remedy is to elevate the error to a higher court for review and correction.