G.R. No. 238822 , October 09, 2019
MELLIEMOORE M. SAYCON, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL NINETEENTH DIVISION) AND ROEL R. DEGAMO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Melliemoore M. Saycon filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against respondent Roel R. Degamo, then Governor of Negros Oriental, and several other provincial officers. The complaint alleged that Degamo caused the release of public funds amounting to P10,000,000.00 for “Intelligence Expenses” despite the absence of a corresponding appropriation in the province’s approved annual budget for Fiscal Year 2013. Degamo had proposed the item, but the Sangguniang Panlalawigan appropriated the amount instead for Gender and Development. Degamo vetoed the deletion, but the veto was not overridden. The Department of Budget and Management and the Commission on Audit both opined that the disbursement violated relevant laws as there was no appropriation. The OMB, in a Decision dated March 2, 2017, found Degamo guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed the penalty of Dismissal from Service. Degamo filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) and prayed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI). The CA granted the TRO and later the WPI, enjoining the implementation of the OMB decision, primarily on the basis that the condonation doctrine applied since the act occurred during Degamo’s first term and he was subsequently re-elected. Saycon filed the present petition for certiorari, challenging the CA’s issuance of the injunctive reliefs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction that enjoined the implementation of the Ombudsman’s Decision dismissing Roel R. Degamo from service.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullified and set aside the assailed CA Resolutions, and dissolved the TRO and WPI. The Court held that the CA’s grant of injunctive relief was a patent and gross abuse of discretion. The requisites for a preliminary injunction were not present. Degamo failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to the office of Governor that warranted protection. A public office is a public trust, and no one has a vested right to hold office. The Ombudsman’s decision, finding substantial evidence of Grave Misconduct and imposing dismissal, carries the presumption of validity. The CA’s reliance on the condonation doctrine to justify the injunction was premature and improper, as the applicability of that doctrine was a matter to be resolved in the main petition for review, not in the incidental prayer for injunctive relief. Furthermore, under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, decisions imposing the penalty of dismissal are immediately executory pending appeal. The CA’s injunction effectively stayed this immediately executory decision without any legal basis, thereby interfering with the Ombudsman’s constitutionally mandated function. The CA was directed to proceed immediately with the resolution of Degamo’s appeal on the merits.