Ganaden v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Marcelo G. Ganaden, Oscar B. Mina, Jose M. Bautista, and Ernesto H. Narciso, Jr. were found liable for dishonesty and misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman. Penalties imposed included one-year suspension and dismissal from service. Procedural History: Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied, and in some cases, the penalties were increased to dismissal. They then filed petitions for review before the Court of Appeals (CA). While their cases were pending before the CA, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an indorsement to the National Transmission Commission (TRANSCO) requesting the implementation of the dismissal and suspension orders. TRANSCO subsequently issued the corresponding orders. Petitioners sought to cite TRANSCO's President in contempt, alleging an automatic stay of execution due to their appeal. The CA denied the contempt citation, clarifying that the inclusion of TRANSCO as a respondent did not grant an automatic stay. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA Resolutions for allegedly committing grave abuse of discretion. They argued that administrative decisions of the Ombudsman imposing dismissal and suspension are immediately executory pending appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether administrative decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing the penalties of dismissal and one-year suspension from office are immediately executory pending appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Resolutions.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated October 11, 2005, October 28, 2005, and November 23, 2005, are affirmed. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court on December 14, 2005, is lifted and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the executory nature of Ombudsman decisions pending appeal: The Court reiterated that under Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, an appeal from a decision of the Ombudsman imposing suspension of more than one month or dismissal from service does not stop the decision from being executory. The provision explicitly states, "An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory." This rule has been consistently upheld by the Court since the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, overturning earlier rulings that granted an automatic stay. The Ombudsman is mandated to ensure that its decisions are strictly enforced and properly implemented. Therefore, the filing of an appeal by the petitioners did not automatically stay the execution of the Ombudsman's dismissal and suspension orders. On the Court of Appeals' alleged grave abuse of discretion: Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. It must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. In this case, the CA's Resolutions were issued in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence regarding the executory nature of Ombudsman decisions. The CA correctly clarified that its earlier resolution allowing the inclusion of TRANSCO as a public respondent did not carry with it an automatic stay of execution. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
Decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing penalties of suspension of more than one month or dismissal from service are immediately executory pending appeal, and the filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the execution of such decisions.