G.R. No. 184645 ; October 30, 2009
JOSE T. BARBIETO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; MARY RAWNSLE V. LOPEZ, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Major General Jose T. Barbieto, a Division Commander in the Philippine Army, faced administrative and criminal complaints before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (ODO-MOLEO) for grave misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 6713 . The charges involved alleged extortion from army applicants and soldiers seeking reinstatement, and anomalies concerning the Balik Baril program fund. On February 29, 2008, ODO-MOLEO issued a six-month preventive suspension order against Barbieto. Concurrently, the Army Investigator General recommended his indictment for violations of the Articles of War, leading the Commanding General of the Philippine Army, Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, to issue an order for Barbieto’s arrest and confinement on March 13, 2008, pending General Court Martial proceedings.
Barbieto filed a motion for reconsideration of the preventive suspension order with the Ombudsman. Without awaiting its resolution, he filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin his arrest and confinement and to lift the preventive suspension. The Court of Appeals denied his prayer for interim relief, prompting Barbieto to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via the instant Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Barbieto’s prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of interim relief. On the preventive suspension, the Court ruled that such an order is immediately executory under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act). A motion for reconsideration does not stay its execution. The Ombudsman’s power to preventively suspend is a statutory prerogative exercised upon a finding that the evidence of guilt is strong, and the charges involve dishonesty, grave misconduct, or would warrant removal. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb this exercise of discretion.
Regarding the arrest and confinement ordered by the military, the Supreme Court held that these were issued pursuant to the military’s jurisdiction over its personnel for alleged violations of the Articles of War. The military justice system operates separately from civilian proceedings. Barbieto failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right to the injunctive relief sought, as he did not establish that the military authorities acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of a right in esse. Since Barbieto did not prove that the Ombudsman and the military acted with grave abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the interim relief. The Petition was dismissed for lack of merit.