Reyes v. Belisario
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents, Deputy Administrators Simplicio Belisario, Jr. and Emmanuel S. Malicdem, along with two other officers of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), filed a criminal complaint against petitioner Prudencio M. Reyes, Jr., the LWUA Administrator, for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Shortly thereafter, petitioner issued office orders reassigning the respondents and directing them to vacate their offices, remove their belongings, and desist from performing their previous functions. These actions were implemented with police assistance, including replacing door locks and sealing cabinet drawers. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) later issued a legal opinion, subsequently affirmed by the CSC en banc, declaring these reassignments invalid, tainted with bad faith, and constituting constructive dismissal, stating that the LWUA Administrator lacked the authority to issue such orders. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of the criminal complaint, the respondents also filed an administrative complaint for Oppression and Harassment against the petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, while acknowledging the CSC's primary jurisdiction over the validity of reassignments, dismissed the administrative case, finding the reassignments to be presumed regular and lacking sufficient evidence of force or intimidation. The Ombudsman based this decision partly on the perceived non-finality of the CSC's rulings due to a pending motion for reconsideration by the petitioner. The respondents appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The CA reversed the Ombudsman's decision, finding it void for lack of substantial evidentiary basis and for ignoring the CSC's pronouncements. The CA ruled that the Ombudsman's decision had not attained finality. The petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, asserting that the Ombudsman's decision was final and unappealable. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in taking cognizance of the respondents' appeal and in reversing the Office of the Ombudsman's decision. The petitioner's sole contention is that the Ombudsman's decision, which exonerated him from the administrative charge, was final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. He maintains that the CA should not have entertained the appeal, as the respondents, as complainants, had no right to appeal an exoneration decision. The petitioner argues that the CA's reversal, therefore, was improper.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the respondents' appeal from the Ombudsman's decision exonerating the petitioner; specifically, whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy despite rules stating the Ombudsman's decision is final and unappealable. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in exonerating the petitioner, considering the Civil Service Commission's rulings declaring the reassignments invalid and constituting constructive dismissal; specifically, whether the Ombudsman properly considered and respected the CSC's findings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, with a modification increasing the penalty to suspension for one (1) year, or a fine equivalent to one-year salary if petitioner is no longer in the service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the recourse taken before the CA: The Court held that while Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules and Section 27 of RA 6770 state that a decision absolving a respondent is final and unappealable, this does not preclude a complainant from seeking recourse through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This is an overriding constitutional authority to determine grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Although the respondents filed a petition for review under Rule 43, the Court, in the interest of justice and considering the grave abuse of discretion alleged, treated it as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court found that the Ombudsman's decision was indeed attended by grave abuse of discretion, rendering it null and void and thus not subject to the rule on finality and unappealability. On the grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman: The Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to accord due respect to the CSC's pronouncements on the validity of the reassignments. The Ombudsman acknowledged the CSC's primary jurisdiction but then dismissed the CSC's rulings as not yet final, despite the CSC en banc having affirmed its earlier opinion. This led the Ombudsman to erroneously apply the presumption of regularity to the petitioner's actions, ignoring the CSC's finding that the reassignments were invalid, tainted with bad faith, and constituted constructive dismissal. The Ombudsman's decision lacked substantial evidence and legal basis, making it premature and arbitrary. The Court agreed with the CA that the reassignments were done in bad faith, amounting to constructive dismissal and abuse of authority, and that petitioner was guilty of oppression.
Main Doctrine
A decision of the Ombudsman absolving a respondent of an administrative charge is final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules and Section 27 of RA 6770. However, this finality does not preclude a complainant from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the Ombudsman's decision for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such a petition is an overriding constitutional authority that cuts across all branches and instrumentalities of government.