Dadulo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rosario Dadulo, a Barangay Security Development Officer (BSDO), was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by the Office of the Ombudsman. The charge stemmed from an incident on September 22, 2002, where construction materials from the house of respondent Gloria Patangui were allegedly taken and brought to the barangay outpost upon petitioner's order. Respondent Gloria Patangui testified that a BSDO informed her that petitioner ordered the seizure. Her nine-year-old daughter, Jessica, testified that she witnessed two men taking the materials under the supervision of a woman, whom she later identified as petitioner's co-accused. Efren Pagabao, a BSDO administratively charged with petitioner, admitted they went to respondent's residence upon petitioner's orders to verify a barangay permit for construction. Petitioner, in her defense, broadly denied the charges and alleged respondent was a professional squatter, but did not specifically deny the acts imputed to her or explain why the materials were found at the outpost. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty of six months suspension. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court, insisting that the Ombudsman's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the implementation of the suspension order was premature. The Petition: Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision denying her petition, arguing against the factual basis of the Ombudsman's finding and the executory nature of the suspension order pending appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman finding petitioner guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is supported by substantial evidence. Whether the implementation of the suspension order by the Office of the Ombudsman is premature pending appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration with finality. It affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld the Ombudsman's finding of administrative liability and the penalty of suspension. The Court ruled that the appeal from the Ombudsman's decision does not stay its execution, and the suspension order was correctly implemented.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial evidence: The Court found that the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman were supported by substantial evidence on record. This included the affidavits of the parties, specifically the testimony of respondent Gloria Patangui that petitioner ordered the seizure of construction materials, and the corroborating testimony of her daughter, Jessica, who witnessed the event and identified the men involved. Furthermore, Efren Pagabao, a co-accused BSDO, admitted that they were at respondent's residence upon petitioner's orders to verify a permit. The Court noted that petitioner's defense consisted of a general denial and an unsubstantiated claim of respondent being a professional squatter, without specifically refuting the acts imputed to her or explaining the presence of the materials at the barangay outpost. Thus, the evidence presented was deemed sufficient to hold petitioner administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On the issue of premature implementation of the suspension order: The Court reiterated that an appeal from a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases does not automatically stay the execution of the decision. The Court cited the amended Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, which explicitly states that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. It clarified that in cases where the penalty is suspension or removal, and the respondent wins on appeal, they shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid their salaries and emoluments. The Court emphasized that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are executed as a matter of course, and the Ombudsman is tasked with ensuring strict enforcement. The Court also referenced its ruling in In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, where it held that procedural laws are generally retroactive in their application to pending cases and that no vested right is violated. Furthermore, the Court pointed to Section 12 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which governs appeals to the Court of Appeals, stating that an appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order, or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals directs otherwise. Therefore, the implementation of the suspension order was not premature.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases does not automatically stay the execution of the decision, as the appeal is not a matter of right but a procedural remedy, and the decision is executory as a matter of course, with the appellant considered under preventive suspension if the penalty is suspension or removal.