Facura v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Facura and Tuason filed a complaint against De Jesus and Parungao for violations of R.A. No. 3019, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents, being notoriously undesirable, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The complaint stemmed from the alleged fabrication of fraudulent appointments of nine coterminous employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) with retroactive effectivity dates, which were used as basis for payment of back salaries, causing prejudice to the government. Procedural History: The Ombudsman found De Jesus and Parungao guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and falsification, and meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service. De Jesus and Parungao appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially granted a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering their reinstatement pending resolution of their appeal. Subsequently, the CA modified its earlier ruling, ordering the reinstatement of Parungao with back pay but affirming the dismissal of De Jesus. The CA later denied motions for reconsideration. The Ombudsman, De Jesus, and Facura/Tuason filed their respective petitions with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The consolidated cases involve petitions assailing the CA's resolutions regarding the preliminary injunction and its final decision on the administrative case. G.R. No. 166495 questions the CA's issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction. G.R. No. 184129 and G.R. No. 184263 involve appeals from the CA's decision affirming the dismissal of De Jesus and modifying the dismissal of Parungao.
Issue(s)
Whether an appeal of the Ombudsman’s decision in administrative cases carries with it the suspension of the imposed penalty. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Whether the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment or res judicata applies to the administrative case based on the dismissal of the criminal cases against De Jesus. Whether De Jesus committed falsification of official documents. Whether De Jesus had the authority to sign the appointment papers given the pendency of his dismissal case with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Whether De Jesus and Parungao were guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, or gross neglect of duty in relation to the CSC Accreditation Program and the issuance of retroactive appointments. Whether Parungao was guilty of simple neglect of duty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled as follows: 1. G.R. No. 166495: The petition is GRANTED. The CA's Resolutions granting the preliminary mandatory injunction are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is DISSOLVED. 2. G.R. No. 184129 & G.R. No. 184263: The petitions are GRANTED in part. The CA's Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is entered ordering the reinstatement of Rodolfo S. De Jesus as Deputy Administrator of LWUA with full back salaries and emoluments. Edelwina DG. Parungao is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and is imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the executory nature of Ombudsman decisions and the CA's issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction: The Court reiterated that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing penalties of suspension or removal are immediately executory pending appeal. The appeal does not automatically stay the execution of the decision. This is based on 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. The Court emphasized that this special rule prevails over the general provisions of the Rules of Court regarding the effect of an appeal. Therefore, the CA's issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction to stay the dismissal order was an encroachment on the Ombudsman's rule-making powers and was set aside. On the executory nature of Ombudsman decisions and the CA's issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction: The Court reiterated that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing penalties of suspension or removal are immediately executory pending appeal. The appeal does not automatically stay the execution of the decision. This is based on 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. The Court emphasized that this special rule prevails over the general provisions of the Rules of Court regarding the effect of an appeal. Therefore, the CA's issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction to stay the dismissal order was an encroachment on the Ombudsman's rule-making powers and was set aside. On the application of Conclusiveness of Judgment/Res Judicata: The Court agreed with De Jesus that the principle of conclusiveness of judgment applies to the finding that there was no falsification of official documents. This is because the criminal case for falsification and the administrative case arose from the same set of facts and involved the same issue. The Supreme Court's prior ruling in De Jesus v. Sandiganbayan that there was no absolutely false narration of facts in the appointment papers is binding on the administrative case concerning falsification. However, this principle did not extend to other charges like dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, or grave misconduct, as these involved different factual considerations and evidence. On Falsification of Official Documents: The Court found that no falsification of official documents occurred. While the CA characterized the request for DBM approval as a disingenuous attempt to provide legality, the Court noted that this request was made by Administrator Jamora, not De Jesus or Parungao. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of deliberate concealment between the DBM and CSC. The Court concluded that De Jesus and Parungao acted in good faith, believing they were making true statements when preparing the appointment papers, and that the issue stemmed from confusion regarding the roles of the CSC and DBM, not from dishonesty or intent to deceive. On De Jesus' Authority to Sign Appointment Papers: The Court ruled that De Jesus could not be faulted for signing the appointment papers. Although the CSC had initially ordered an investigation into his dismissal, his reinstatement by the LWUA Board preceded the signing of the papers. The CSC's resolution recalling his reinstatement was issued after the appointment papers were prepared and signed. Crucially, the CSC ultimately dismissed the case against De Jesus, conclusively establishing his right to his title and position. Therefore, at the time he signed, he had a basis to believe he had the authority. On De Jesus' and Parungao's Liability under the CSC Accreditation Program: The Court exonerated De Jesus from liability regarding the failure to submit the first set of appointment papers to the CSC. It clarified that the duty to prepare and submit the Report on Personnel Actions (ROPA) and appointment papers to the CSC rested with the HRMD head, Parungao, not De Jesus. De Jesus' role in signing appointment papers was ministerial, provided they were approved by the Administrator or Board. The Court found no evidence of bad faith or dishonesty on the part of De Jesus. However, Parungao, as HRMO, was found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for failing to exercise the required prudence and attention in her role, leading to the issuance of ineffective appointments and confusion regarding the DBM and CSC's roles. On Parungao's Liability: The Court found Parungao guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. As HRMO, she was responsible for ensuring compliance with CSC rules and reportorial requirements. Her failure to recognize the ineffectiveness of the retroactive appointments under CSC rules and her initial approval of them demonstrated a lack of proper attention to her duties. The Court imposed a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, considering her demonstrated good faith in other aspects.
Main Doctrine
Decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing penalties of suspension or removal are immediately executory pending appeal, and such appeals do not automatically stay the execution of the decision. The CA has no discretion to issue a preliminary injunction to stay such decisions as it encroaches upon the rule-making powers of the Ombudsman.