GR 155320; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155320 ; February 5, 2004
RENATO F. HERRERA, petitioner, vs. PLARIDEL ELMER J. BOHOL, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Renato F. Herrera, a Director at the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), approved in January 1997 a request to shift respondent Plaridel Elmer J. Bohol’s item number, allowing Bohol to draw his salary under a new fund. However, by April 1997, Bohol was informed he could no longer draw from that fund as his item had been recalled and given to another employee, Gregoria Ancheta. Bohol protested to Herrera, who referred the matter to Bohol’s immediate supervisor. Bohol subsequently charged Herrera before the Office of the Ombudsman with Grave Misconduct and/or Inefficiency and Incompetence for the recall of his item.
The Ombudsman found Herrera guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a penalty of suspension for one month without pay. Herrera appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision, ruling it was final and unappealable under existing jurisprudence. Herrera’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty of suspension for one month without pay imposed by the Ombudsman is final and unappealable.
RULING
Yes, the penalty is final and unappealable. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act) provides that decisions imposing “suspension of not more than one month’s salary” are final. The Court held that the phrase “suspension of not more than one month’s salary” encompasses the penalty of “suspension for one month without pay” imposed on Herrera. The ruling clarifies that in administrative law, salaries are not suspended independently; rather, the employee is suspended, and salary is withheld under the “no work, no pay” principle. This interpretation is reinforced by the Ombudsman’s own Rules of Procedure (Administrative Order No. 7), which states that a penalty of “suspension of not more than one month” is final.
The Court rejected Herrera’s reliance on an excerpt from Lapid v. Court of Appeals, noting that the penalty in Lapid was a one-year suspension, which is distinctly appealable, unlike a one-month suspension. The subsequent case of Lopez v. Court of Appeals reiterated that such short-term suspensions are final. As the penalty was unappealable, the Court declined to review Herrera’s factual defenses concerning his lack of deliberate intent or his corrective actions, as factual findings of the Ombudsman, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded respect and are not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45.