GR 154652; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154652 ; August 14, 2009
PRUDENCIO M. REYES, JR., Petitioner, vs. SIMPLICIO C. BELISARIO and EMMANUEL S. MALICDEM, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, deputy administrators of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), filed a criminal complaint for graft against petitioner, the LWUA Administrator. Days later, petitioner reassigned respondents to a newly created task force, stripped them of their specific duties, and barred them from their former offices. Their locks were changed and belongings were sealed. The respondents then filed an administrative complaint for Oppression and Harassment before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, giving weight to the presumption of regularity of the reassignments and disregarding a Civil Service Commission (CSC) legal opinion that found the reassignments tainted with bad faith and constituting constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman’s decision, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s decision, given the claim that such a decision in an administrative disciplinary case is final and unappealable.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s jurisdiction to review the Ombudsman’s decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. While Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 and the Ombudsman’s own rules state that decisions in administrative disciplinary cases are “final and unappealable,” this does not foreclose judicial review when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously ignoring the CSC’s factual findings. The CSC, as the central personnel agency, possesses primary jurisdiction over civil service matters, including the validity of reassignments. Its legal opinion, which found bad faith and constructive dismissal based on the timing and effects of the reassignments, was compelling evidence. The Ombudsman’s contradictory act—acknowledging the CSC’s primary jurisdiction yet refusing to accord weight to its factual determination—was arbitrary. Consequently, the CA correctly nullified the Ombudsman’s decision and found the petitioner guilty of Oppression for his retaliatory and demeaning acts against the respondents.