G.R. No. 181195 ; June 10, 2013
FREDERICK JAMES C. ORAIS, Petitioner, vs. DR. AMELIA C. ALMIRANTE, Respondent.

FACTS

In 2003, petitioner Frederick James C. Orais, a Veterinary Quarantine Inspector-Seaport of the Department of Agriculture (DA) Region VII, filed a complaint for corruption and grave misconduct with the Office of the Ombudsman against his superior, respondent Dr. Amelia C. Almirante, the Veterinary Quarantine Officer-Seaport. The complaint alleged that respondent: (1) ordered subordinates to receive money from importers for clearance certificates without issuing official receipts; (2) directly received inspection fees without issuing official receipts; (3) authorized private contractual workers to perform veterinary quarantine functions; (4) granted monetary considerations to these private workers; and (5) lacked delicadeza by allowing her husband to work as her subordinate in the same office. The complaint was supported by affidavits from co-employees Luz Tabasa and Dr. Verna Agriam, and contractual worker Alfredo Barbon, detailing these alleged practices.
In her defense, respondent submitted a Counter-Affidavit denying the accusations. She asserted that all payments were properly received by the DA Regulatory Division through authorized Collection Officers who issued official receipts based on her Orders of Payment. She explained that the acknowledgment receipts issued were for reimbursements of transportation, meals, lodging, and overtime expenses for quarantine personnel, as authorized under DA Administrative Order No. 22, series of 1993 (DAO 22). She claimed the accusations were motivated by resentment from petitioner and Tabasa due to her refusal to sign their Daily Time Records because of their absences and irregular work attendance.
On July 31, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of substantial basis, finding that respondent’s acts were in accordance with law and office regulations. The Ombudsman’s decision became final and executory. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated August 17, 2006, dismissed the petition, ruling that it had no jurisdiction to review the Ombudsman’s decision which had become final and unappealable under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as the respondent was absolved of the charge. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 10, 2007. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, which absolved the respondent of the administrative charge, is final, executory, and unappealable.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling.
The Court held that under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), and reiterated in Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Administrative Order No. 7, as amended), the decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are final and unappealable in two instances: (1) where the respondent is absolved of the charge; or (2) in case of conviction, where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. The law explicitly states that such decisions “shall be final and unappealable.”
In this case, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a decision on July 31, 2003, dismissing the administrative complaint and absolving respondent Dr. Amelia C. Almirante of all charges. Consequently, pursuant to the clear mandate of the law, this decision became final, executory, and unappealable. Therefore, the Court of Appeals had no appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, or rectify the Ombudsman’s final order. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rule on the finality of the Ombudsman’s decisions in the specified instances is jurisdictional. Since the respondent was absolved, the Ombudsman’s decision attained finality, and no appeal or petition for review could be entertained by the CA. The Petition for Review on Certiorari was denied, and the assailed CA Decision and Resolution were affirmed.