Saycon v. Degamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Melliemoore M. Saycon filed an administrative complaint against respondent Roel R. Degamo, then Governor of Negros Oriental, and other provincial officers for allegedly causing the release of P10,000,000.00 in public funds for 'Intelligence Expenses' without a corresponding appropriation in the 2013 budget. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan appropriated the amount for Gender and Development instead, and Roel's veto of this deletion was not overridden. Despite objections from the Provincial Budget Officer, Accountant, and Treasurer, Roel directed the release of the funds. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Regional Office VII and the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. VII opined that the disbursement was without legal basis due to the absence of appropriation. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) dismissed the complaint against Roel's co-respondents but found Roel guilty of Grave Misconduct, imposing the penalty of Dismissal from Service. Roel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) to enjoin the OMB's decision. The CA granted the TRO and subsequently the WPI, applying the condonation doctrine, reasoning that Roel was elected for a subsequent term after the alleged offense. Petitioner Melliemoore assailed the CA's resolutions via a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the condonation doctrine was inapplicable and that the CA erred in granting the injunctive reliefs. The Petition: The petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeks to nullify the CA's Resolutions dated January 11, 2018, and March 7, 2018, which granted the TRO and WPI, respectively, enjoining the OMB from implementing its decision dismissing Roel from service. Petitioner argues that the CA gravely abused its discretion in applying the condonation doctrine and in issuing the injunctive writs.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the TRO and WPI enjoining the OMB from implementing its Decision dated March 2, 2017. Whether the condonation doctrine is applicable to respondent Roel R. Degamo's situation. Whether respondent Roel R. Degamo has a vested right to the office of Governor that warrants injunctive relief.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 11, 2018, and March 7, 2018, are nullified and set aside. The TRO and WPI issued are dissolved. The Court of Appeals is directed to proceed immediately with the resolution of respondent Roel R. Degamo's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the CA's issuance of injunctive relief: The Court found that the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and WPI. For an injunctive writ to be issued, the applicant must show a right clearly founded on or granted by law. In this case, Roel failed to establish such a right. The Rules of Procedure of the OMB explicitly state that an appeal does not stop the decision from being executory, and the OMB has a duty to implement its decisions. The Court has previously held that the immediate execution of OMB decisions in administrative cases is a valid exercise of its rule-making power, and the CA's issuance of an injunctive writ to stay such implementation encroaches upon this power. Therefore, the CA should not have issued the challenged TRO and WPI. On the applicability of the condonation doctrine: While the CA applied the condonation doctrine, the Supreme Court's ruling focused on the impropriety of the injunction itself, rather than definitively ruling on the applicability of the condonation doctrine to Roel's specific circumstances. The Court's primary concern was the CA's encroachment on the OMB's rule-making power and the lack of a vested right to the office. The Court noted that the issue of whether Roel was 'elected' or 'succeeded' to the office, which is crucial for the condonation doctrine, was a matter still pending resolution before the CA. However, the Court's finding of grave abuse of discretion by the CA in issuing the injunction rendered the discussion on the condonation doctrine secondary to the procedural issue of the CA's authority. On the existence of a vested right and urgent necessity: The Court emphasized that there can be no vested interest or absolute right to a public office, as public office is a public trust and not a property right. The enforcement of the OMB's decision would not result in grave and irreparable injury to Roel because, under the OMB's rules, a respondent meted with dismissal is considered under preventive suspension during the pendency of an appeal. Should the appeal be successful, the respondent official is entitled to receive the salary and other emoluments not received during the period of removal. Thus, there was no urgent necessity or serious, irreparable damage that would justify the issuance of an injunctive writ.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) to enjoin the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) from implementing its decision dismissing a public officer, as the OMB's Rules of Procedure explicitly state that an appeal does not automatically stay the execution of its decisions, and there is no vested right to a public office that would warrant such injunctive relief.