GR 175573; (October, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175573; October 5, 2010
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO, Respondent.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a second motion for partial reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s September 11, 2008 decision. That decision had declared, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, that the mere filing of an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) by respondent Joel Samaniego stayed the execution of the Ombudsman’s joint decision against him, which imposed a one-year suspension. The Court had thus deemed Samaniego’s prayer for a preliminary injunction to be superfluous. The Ombudsman sought reconsideration, arguing its decision should be immediately executory despite an appeal.
ISSUE
Whether a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case imposing a penalty of suspension for one year is immediately executory pending appeal, such that the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ by the Court of Appeals cannot stay its execution.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Ombudsman’s motion and modified its earlier decision. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s decision imposing a one-year suspension is immediately executory and cannot be stayed by the mere filing of an appeal. This is explicitly mandated by Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, which states, “An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory.”
The legal logic is grounded in the Ombudsman’s constitutional and statutory rule-making authority. Section 13(8), Article XI of the Constitution and Sections 18 and 27 of The Ombudsman Act (R.A. 6770) grant the Office the power to promulgate its own procedural rules. The specific, categorical provision in its Rules prevails over the general provision in Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which grants the CA discretion to stay execution. The principle specialis derogat generali applies: a special rule (the Ombudsman’s Rules) governs over a general one (the Rules of Court). The Court further reasoned that no vested right is violated, as a respondent is considered under preventive suspension during appeal and, if exonerated, shall be paid back salaries and emoluments. To allow the CA to issue an injunction staying the penalty would encroach upon the Ombudsman’s rule-making power and render its executory rule nugatory.