G.R. No. 172224; January 26, 2011.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DINAH C. BARRIGA, Respondents.

FACTS

Sonia Q. Pua filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas against municipal officials of Carmen, Cebu, including respondent Dinah C. Barriga, the Municipal Accountant, for alleged irregular transactions involving a municipal trust fund. In a Decision dated August 28, 2002, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Barriga guilty of misconduct and imposed a six-month suspension. Upon review, the Office of the Ombudsman modified the decision, finding Barriga guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposing a one-year suspension. Barriga’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Ombudsman then directed the municipal mayor to implement the suspension order dated November 13, 2002. Barriga filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied on July 7, 2003. She elevated the case to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 160402), which denied her petition and subsequent motions for reconsideration in Resolutions dated January 14, 2004, March 17, 2004, and July 7, 2004. After a month, the Ombudsman, through letters dated August 10, 2004, and September 3, 2004, again directed the municipal mayor to implement the suspension. Barriga requested a hold on the implementation pending the Supreme Court’s entry of judgment, which was denied. She then challenged these letters before the CA. The Supreme Court issued the entry of judgment on October 28, 2004, and the municipal mayor implemented the suspension on November 2, 2004. The CA, in a Resolution dated June 16, 2005, modified its earlier decision and declared the Ombudsman’s orders (August 10, 2004, and September 3, 2004) null and void, stating they were made beyond its authority and prematurely, as the appeal was still pending. It also nullified the mayor’s implementation order and ordered Barriga’s reinstatement. The Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on February 20, 2006.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in nullifying the orders of the Office of the Ombudsman to the municipal mayor for the immediate implementation of the penalty of suspension from service of respondent Barriga even though the case was pending on appeal.

RULING

The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Resolutions. It held that under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), a decision of the Ombudsman in administrative cases is immediately executory. The provision explicitly states that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and the Ombudsman shall ensure the decision is strictly enforced and implemented. In this case, the Ombudsman’s modified Decision dated August 28, 2002, imposing a one-year suspension on Barriga, was appealable but immediately executory. Barriga’s appeals to the CA and the Supreme Court did not stay its execution. The Supreme Court’s denial of her petition and motions for reconsideration in G.R. No. 160402, culminating in the entry of judgment on October 28, 2004, affirmed the decision’s finality. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s orders for implementation (August 10, 2004, and September 3, 2004) were valid and within its authority, as the decision was executory pending appeal. The CA erred in nullifying these orders and the subsequent implementation by the municipal mayor. The Ombudsman’s decisions are not merely advisory but mandatory, and the implementing officer has no discretion to review or reject them.