GR 172206; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172206 ; July 3, 2013
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, vs. ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman found respondents, officials of Batangas State University (BSU), guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and ordered their dismissal. While respondents appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), the Ombudsman directed the BSU Board of Regents (BSU-BOR) to enforce the dismissal order immediately. The BSU-BOR complied via Resolution No. 18, s. 2005. Respondents then filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to stop the implementation, arguing the decision was not yet final and executory due to the pending appeal. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of cause of action.
Respondents appealed to the CA, which granted a temporary restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction against the BSU-BOR’s implementation of the dismissal. The CA ruled that the penalty was not immediately executory because an appeal had been filed. The Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion to intervene and recall the TRO, which the CA denied, leading the Ombudsman to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the execution of the Ombudsman’s dismissal order against respondents pending appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the Ombudsman’s petition and set aside the CA’s Resolution. The Court held that decisions of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of dismissal are immediately executory pending appeal, as expressly provided under Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. This rule is a valid exercise of the Ombudsman’s constitutional and statutory rule-making authority.
The legal logic is clear: the specific procedural rules of the Ombudsman govern the execution of its decisions. The filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the execution of a dismissal order. The CA’s grant of an injunctive writ effectively suspended the implementation of a final and executory administrative penalty, thereby encroaching upon the Ombudsman’s exclusive prerogative to enforce its own rules. Consequently, the BSU-BOR acted correctly in implementing the Ombudsman’s order through Resolution No. 18. The respondents had no clear legal right to a stay of execution, making the preliminary injunction improper. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s order dismissing the petition for injunction.