GR 120223; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120223 . March 13, 1996. DR. RAMON Y. ALBA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN CESAR Y. NITORREDA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, graduating students from Arriesgado Institute of Medical Sciences Foundation, Inc. (AIMSFI), filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao against petitioner Dr. Ramon Y. Alba, a DECS Director. They accused him of violating R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The students had sought petitioner’s intervention in a dispute with their school. On the scheduled meeting date, the students traveled to the DECS office. Petitioner, however, met first and exclusively with the school owners, leaving the students waiting for hours. The Deputy Ombudsman had to intervene, admonishing petitioner for not hearing both sides simultaneously.
The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of violating Section 4(b), (c), and (e) of R.A. 6713, noting partiality and a failure to act with justness and professionalism. The resolution highlighted that the school later conditioned the students’ taking of final exams and graduation on the withdrawal of their complaint against petitioner, indicating joint coercion. Petitioner was suspended for thirty days without pay. His motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings and the penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case.
RULING
No. The petition is dismissed. The Court’s power of review over Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases is limited. Under Section 27 of R.A. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), any order or decision imposing a penalty of suspension for not more than one month’s salary is declared “final and unappealable.” The law explicitly withdraws any right of appeal to the Court from such a decision. The thirty-day suspension without pay imposed on petitioner falls squarely within this category of final penalties.
The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. In this case, the Ombudsman’s finding of partiality and unprofessional conduct was based on substantial evidence, including the sequence of events during the meeting and the subsequent coercive condition imposed on the students. The Court cannot re-evaluate these factual conclusions. The legislative intent behind R.A. 6770 is to insulate the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority, especially for lighter penalties, from judicial interference to ensure swift accountability. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the merits of the Ombudsman’s administrative decision. The motion for reconsideration was denied.