Moro v. Del Castillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Ombudsman charged Generoso Reyes Del Castillo, Jr. (Del Castillo), then Chief Accountant of the GHQ Accounting Center of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for making false statements in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and acquiring properties disproportionate to his salary. On April 1, 2006, Del Castillo was reassigned to the Philippine Air Force (PAF) Accounting Center, and petitioner Danilo Moro (Moro) took over his position as GHQ Chief Accountant. On February 5, 2007, the Ombudsman ordered Del Castillo's dismissal from the service, which included cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment. Del Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration, which remained pending. Procedural History: Following the lapse of his six-month preventive suspension, Del Castillo attempted to reassume his former post but was prevented by Moro. Consequently, Del Castillo filed a petition for quo warranto against Moro. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Del Castillo's petition, holding that Moro held the position validly and that Del Castillo's reassignment to the PAF was valid. The RTC also found Del Castillo's petition moot due to the Ombudsman's dismissal order. Del Castillo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision, holding that Del Castillo's reassignment exceeded the one-year maximum and that the Ombudsman's dismissal order was non-executory pending appeal. The Petition: Moro filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Del Castillo is entitled to be restored to the position of Chief Accountant of the GHQ Accounting Center. Whether the Ombudsman's dismissal order against Del Castillo was executory pending appeal.
Ruling
The Court GRANTS the petition, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATES the decision of the Regional Trial Court dismissing the complaint for quo warranto.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Del Castillo is entitled to be restored to the position of Chief Accountant of the GHQ Accounting Center: The Court held that Del Castillo was not entitled to reassume his former post. An action for quo warranto requires the petitioner to prove entitlement to the public office. In this case, Del Castillo filed the action for quo warranto after the Ombudsman had ordered his dismissal from the service. As the dismissal order was immediately executory, Del Castillo had no right to pursue the action or reassume the position. Moro, on the other hand, was authorized under Special Order 91 to serve as GHQ Chief Accountant. On whether the Ombudsman's dismissal order against Del Castillo was executory pending appeal: The Court clarified that the ruling in Lapid v. Court of Appeals, which stated that certain Ombudsman decisions are not immediately executory, has been superseded by subsequent rulings. Specifically, in In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, the Court held that Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order 7, as amended by Administrative Order 17, clearly provides that an appeal shall not stop a decision of the Ombudsman from being executory. This ruling was reiterated in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Ombudsman's dismissal order against Del Castillo was immediately executory, notwithstanding his pending appeal.
Main Doctrine
An order of dismissal from service by the Ombudsman is immediately executory, even pending appeal, and thus disqualifies the official from reassuming their former post or pursuing an action for quo warranto.