Posted by: Rianne Fernandez
FACTS:
Gerardo Villaseñor and Rodel Mesa were administratively charged in connection with the Manor Hotel fire tragedy. Pending resolution of Mesa's appeal and Villaseñor's motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman directed the Mayor of Quezon City and the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government to enforce the Joint Decision immediately upon receipt of the order. Villaseñor and Mesa now question such Order of the Ombudsman despite the pendency of their motion for reconsideration and appeal, respectively. Mesa further argued that Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 17 which makes appealable decisions of the Ombudsman immediately executory, amending Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, should not be applied to his case because it was promulgated long after the rendition of the order of his suspension on June 17, 2003.
ISSUE:
Can the Ombudsman's order of dismissal from the service and suspension of one year be implemented pending resolution of Villaseñor's motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, and Mesa's appeal before the Court of Appeals?
HELD:
Yes. A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. In appealable cases, Section 7 is categorical in providing that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and that such shall be executed as a matter of course. Mesa was ordered suspended for one year without pay, while Villaseñor was ordered dismissed from the service. These are plainly appealable decisions which are immediately executory pending appeal.
The same is true that the filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review before the Office of the Ombudsman does not operate to stay the immediate implementation of the foregoing Ombudsman decisions, order, or resolutions. Furthermore, on Mesa's additional contention, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are procedural in nature and therefore, may be applied retroactively to his and Villaseor's cases which were pending and unresolved at the time of the passing of A.O. 17.
No vested right is violated by the application of Section 7 because the respondent in the administrative case is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal and, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. It is important to note that there is no such thing as vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.
Added by WinLawTeam:
The petition must fail.
Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by A.O. No. 17, dated September 15, 2003, provides:
SEC. 7. Finality and execution of decision.– Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and 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 salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the motion for reconsideration.
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against such officer.
[Emphases supplied]
From the above, it can be gleaned that the Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases may either be unappealable or appealable. Unappealable decisions are final and executory, and they are as follows: (1) respondent is absolved of the charge; (2) the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand; (3) suspension of not more than one month; and (4) a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. Appealable decisions, on the other hand, are those which fall outside said enumeration, and may be appealed to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within 15 days from receipt of the written notice of the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration. Section 7 is categorical in providing that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and that such shall be executed as a matter of course.
xxx
The Court notes, however, that under Section 8 of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by A.O. No. 17, the Hearing Officer shall decide a motion for reconsideration within S days from the date of submission for resolution. Petitioner Villaseñor filed his motion for reconsideration on December 13, 2004, on the same day as petitioner Mesa, whose motion was duly resolved. Whether by oversight or negligence, a period nearly I 0 years has elapsed without action on Villase11or's motion for reconsideration. The Office of the Ombudsman is called upon to be more vigilant in carrying out its functions and in complying with the periods laid clown in the law.1âwphi1
