Ombudsman v. Pacuribot
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Elmer M. Pacuribot, the Municipal Treasurer of El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, was administratively charged by his wife before the Office of the Ombudsman with Immorality or Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct for allegedly fathering two children with another woman. Following proceedings, the Ombudsman found substantial evidence to hold Pacuribot guilty and imposed a penalty of nine months' suspension from office. Procedural History: The Ombudsman issued a decision on July 23, 2008, finding Pacuribot guilty and ordering his nine-month suspension, with a directive for immediate implementation. Pacuribot filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which was followed by the Bureau of Local Government Finance issuing an order for his suspension. Subsequently, Pacuribot filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the Ombudsman's directive for immediate implementation. The Court of Appeals granted his petition, setting aside the directive for immediate implementation. The Ombudsman then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Office of the Ombudsman filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that set aside the Ombudsman's directive for the immediate implementation of the nine-month suspension against respondent Elmer M. Pacuribot. The Ombudsman argues that its decision is immediately executory pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of its Rules of Procedure, as amended, and that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the immediate implementation, citing that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases are immediately executory pending appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in setting aside the immediate implementation of the Office of the Ombudsman's decision. Whether a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case imposing a penalty of suspension is immediately executory pending appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, and declared the case closed and terminated due to the respondent's death. The Court held that the Ombudsman's decision imposing a penalty of suspension is immediately executory pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in setting aside the immediate implementation of the Office of the Ombudsman's decision: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in setting aside the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman's decision. The Court emphasized that jurisprudence has long settled the matter that penalties imposed by the Ombudsman in administrative cases are immediately executory. The filing or pendency of an appeal does not stay the execution of such decisions. The Court pointed out that the respondent himself acknowledged that the Court had already corrected its earlier pronouncement in the Samaniego case, upholding the immediate executory nature of Ombudsman decisions. The Court reiterated that the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, specifically Section 7, Rule III, as amended, clearly states that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. This specific rule prevails over the general provisions of the Rules of Court regarding the effect of an appeal. The CA's issuance of an injunctive writ would encroach upon the Ombudsman's rule-making powers granted by the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act. On the issue of whether a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case imposing a penalty of suspension is immediately executory pending appeal: The Supreme Court affirmed that decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing penalties like suspension are immediately executory. This is explicitly provided for in Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17. The Court clarified that the filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review does not operate to stay the immediate implementation of these decisions, unless a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court cited its En Banc Resolution in Samaniego, which unequivocally upheld the immediate executory nature of Ombudsman decisions pending appeal. The Court further explained that in the event the respondent wins on appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and emoluments he did not receive. This provision ensures that the respondent is not prejudiced by the immediate execution of the decision.
Main Doctrine
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing a penalty of suspension is immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ, pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17.