G.R. Nos. 170500 & 170510-11; June 1, 2011
MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR., Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMMISSION (TRANSCO), ALIPIO NOOL, FERMIN P. LANAG, SR., EUSEBIO B. COLLADO, JOSE S. TEJANO, NECIMIO A. ABUZO, ELISEO P. MARTINEZ AND PERFECTO LAZARO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Marcelo G. Ganaden, Oscar B. Mina, Jose M. Bautista, and Ernesto H. Narciso, Jr. were found administratively liable by the Office of the Ombudsman in three separate decisions dated September 30, 2002. The Ombudsman initially imposed a penalty of one-year suspension. Upon petitioners’ motions for reconsideration, the Ombudsman, in Orders dated April 8, 2005, modified the penalties: it increased the penalty to dismissal from service for petitioners Ganaden, Bautista, and Narciso, while maintaining the one-year suspension for petitioner Mina. Petitioners had availed of an early retirement program from the National Power Corporation (NPC) in 2003 and were subsequently employed at the National Transmission Commission (TRANSCO). They filed separate petitions for review before the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the Ombudsman’s decisions and orders. While these petitions were pending, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a 1st Indorsement dated September 19, 2005, requesting TRANSCO to implement the penalties. Consequently, respondent Alan T. Ortiz, President and CEO of TRANSCO, issued Orders of Dismissal and Suspension on October 12, 2005. Petitioners filed a motion with the CA to cite respondent Ortiz in contempt, arguing that their appeal automatically stayed the execution of the Ombudsman’s decision. The CA denied their motion in Resolutions dated October 28, 2005, and November 23, 2005, clarifying that the appeal did not carry an automatic stay of execution. Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether administrative decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing the penalties of dismissal and one-year suspension from office are immediately executory pending appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that under Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003, an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. This provision explicitly states that a decision of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Court overturned its previous rulings in Lopez v. Court of Appeals and Lapid v. Court of Appeals, which had held that such decisions were automatically stayed upon appeal, and instead affirmed the doctrine established in In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH. The Court reiterated that decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal, and the filing of an appeal with the CA does not stay their execution. Consequently, the CA Resolutions dated October 11, 2005, October 28, 2005, and November 23, 2005, were issued in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence, and no grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court was lifted.