G.R. No. 166495 , G.R. No. 184129 & G.R. No. 184263; February 16, 2011
Case Parties/Title:

G.R. No. 166495 : ROQUE C. FACURA and EDUARDO F. TUASON, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RODOLFO S. DE JESUS and EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 184129: RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, EDUARDO F. TUASON, LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA), represented by its new Administrator Orlando C. Hondrade, Respondents.
G.R. No. 184263: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Former 7th Division), Respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated cases originated from a Joint Complaint-Affidavit filed by Roque Facura and Eduardo Tuason with the Office of the Ombudsman against Rodolfo De Jesus (Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services of LWUA) and Edelwina Parungao (HRMD Manager of LWUA) for various administrative offenses.
The core incident involved the retroactive appointments of nine confidential staff for the LWUA Board of Trustees in 2001. While awaiting a reply from the DBM on a request for authority to hire, LWUA Administrator Lorenzo Jamora directed the processing of salaries for two staff. On December 11, 2001, LWUA received DBM approval. On the same day, based on this approval, several LWUA Board members issued inter-office memoranda and a letter directing De Jesus to prepare appointment papers for their confidential staff with retroactive effectivity dates (June 19 and August 20, 2001). These documents bore the written concurrence of Administrator Jamora. De Jesus forwarded these to the HRMD.
As HRMD head, Parungao oversaw the preparation of formal appointment papers (CSC Form No. 33), which indicated the retroactive dates. The forms were signed by De Jesus as representative of the appointing authority. Office Orders issued by De Jesus and Parungao listed the nine appointees with their retroactive dates. On December 20, 2001, Administrator Jamora issued a memorandum ordering the payment of back salaries, citing DBM approval. A disbursement voucher for over ₱600,000 was processed and approved by Jamora.
Subsequently, De Jesus and Parungao informed Administrator Jamora via a memorandum that the retroactive appointments violated CSC rules (CSC Resolution No. 967701 and the Omnibus Rules), which could lead to the cancellation of LWUA’s accreditation and personal liability.
The Ombudsman found De Jesus and Parungao guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and ordered their dismissal from the service. They filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). Pending this appeal, the CA granted their applications for a preliminary mandatory injunction and ordered their reinstatement. The CA later rendered a Decision and Resolution modifying the Ombudsman’s ruling: it affirmed De Jesus’s dismissal but ordered Parungao’s reinstatement, finding her offense constituted Simple Neglect of Duty only. These consolidated petitions assail the various CA rulings.

ISSUE

The primary issues for resolution were:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the reinstatement of De Jesus and Parungao despite the Ombudsman’s final order of dismissal ( G.R. No. 166495 ).
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s dismissal of De Jesus from the service (G.R. No. 184129).
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the Ombudsman’s ruling and finding Parungao guilty only of Simple Neglect of Duty instead of Grave Misconduct, thereby ordering her reinstatement (G.R. No. 184263).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
1. On the Preliminary Injunction ( G.R. No. 166495 ): The petition was DISMISSED for being moot and academic. The main case (CA-G.R. SP No. 84902) had already been decided by the CA with finality. An injunction is a provisional remedy; a ruling on its propriety becomes moot after a judgment on the merits is rendered.
2. On the Dismissal of Rodolfo De Jesus (G.R. No. 184129): The petition was DENIED. The Court affirmed the CA decision upholding the Ombudsman’s dismissal of De Jesus for Grave Misconduct. The Court found that De Jesus, as a lawyer and high-ranking official, acted with corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and flagrant disregard of established rules. His acts of signing the retroactive appointment papers and authorizing the payment of back salaries, despite knowing the prohibitions under CSC rules, constituted a willful transgression of the law. His claim of merely following superior’s orders was rejected, as the duty to obey is limited to lawful orders. His offense warranted the penalty of dismissal.
3. On the Penalty for Edelwina Parungao (G.R. No. 184263): The petition was GRANTED. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA ruling that downgraded her offense to Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court reinstated the Ombudsman’s finding of Grave Misconduct and the penalty of DISMISSAL. The Court held that Parungao, as HRMD Manager, was the technical expert on appointment rules. Her actions—preparing the irregular appointment papers, affixing her initials, and issuing Office Orders confirming the retroactive dates—went beyond mere negligence. She demonstrated a conscious indifference to the consequences of her actions, amounting to a willful intent to violate the rules or a flagrant disregard of them. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive. The CA overstepped its authority in re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own judgment for that of the Ombudsman.
The Court’s final disposition: The Ombudsman’s decision dismissing both Rodolfo S. De Jesus and Edelwina DG. Parungao from the service with all its accessory penalties was AFFIRMED.