G.R. No. 214407 , March 03, 2021
Commissioner Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing, Petitioner, vs. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Office of the President, and Chairperson Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Commission of Human Rights, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing, then a Commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), was administratively charged before the Office of the Ombudsman with Grave Misconduct and violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713 , among others, based on complaint-affidavits filed by members of her staff. The allegations included cruelty, issuing illegal orders, and specifically, that Quisumbing offered a staff member, Ma. Regina D. Eugenio, a promotion on the condition that the salary differential would be remitted to Quisumbing as part of an office fund. Quisumbing admitted to proposing such an agreement and receiving the differentials, which totaled P41,292.85, but claimed the funds were for office benefit. The Ombudsman, in a Joint Resolution dated August 28, 2014, found substantial evidence to support the charges and meted the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties. Quisumbing filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 15, 2014. Subsequently, on September 24, 2014, respondent Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa issued a Memorandum directing CHR Chairperson Loretta Ann P. Rosales to implement the Ombudsman’s dismissal order. In compliance, Chairperson Rosales issued a memorandum on October 1, 2014, dismissing Quisumbing from service. Quisumbing filed the present petition, arguing the implementation was premature due to her pending motion for reconsideration and constituted undue interference with the constitutional independence of the CHR and the Ombudsman.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they implemented Quisumbing’s dismissal despite the pendency of her motion for reconsideration with the Office of the Ombudsman.

RULING

The petition has no merit. The Supreme Court ruled that respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are immediately executory pending appeal, and this rule applies even when a motion for reconsideration is filed, as such a motion is considered a mode of appeal. The Court cited its ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals which clarified that a motion for reconsideration is the functional equivalent of an appeal in Ombudsman cases, thus triggering the immediate execution rule. Furthermore, the Court found that the President, through the Executive Secretary, has disciplinary authority over officials of the CHR, as they are presidential appointees, and such authority is not an infringement on the CHR’s constitutional independence, which is meant to shield it from pressure but not from disciplinary action. The issuance of the implementing memoranda was a valid exercise of this authority. The Court also noted that the Ombudsman subsequently denied Quisumbing’s motion for reconsideration on November 11, 2014, rendering the issue of premature implementation moot.