G.R. No. 120223 - Alba vs. Deputy Ombudsman

The administrative case (OBM-MIN-ADM-94-059) was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao by Jesiela Antiporta and Aida Salmeo, together with other students, against Dr. Ramon Y. Alba in his official capacity as Director III of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).
The students alleged violations by petitioner of certain provisions of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. 6713).

Twenty-five (25) graduating students of Arriesgado Institute of Medical Sciences Foundation, Inc. (AIMSFI) requested Albá's intervention regarding disputes arising from school policies.
Petitioner scheduled a meeting on March 20, 1994, to address the complaints at the DECS office in Davao City.
On the meeting date, instead of meeting the students first, petitioner met with the school owners (the Arriesgado spouses) without prior appointment, leaving the students waiting for hours.
Students contacted Deputy Ombudsman Cesar E. Nitorreda, who admonished petitioner for not hearing both parties simultaneously. Petitioner subsequently presided over a conference between students and school owners.

Petitioner reported to the Ombudsman that he facilitated an amicable settlement.
Private respondents submitted an affidavit-complaint denying settlement and accusing petitioner of bias in favor of the school owners.
As a consequence, the students were barred from final exams and graduation.
Petitioner denied the accusations, asserting he first met the owners to understand the full situation before a joint conference.
Petitioner attributed students’ exclusion from final examinations to their failure to settle obligations and pass academic requirements.
He later averred that the school conditioned students' exam-taking and graduation on withdrawing the complaint against him.

Both parties failed to attend a preliminary conference called by the Graft Investigating Officer.
On April 28, 1995, the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of violating Sections 4(b), (c), and (e) of R.A. 6713 relating to professionalism, justness and sincerity, and responsiveness to the public.
The Ombudsman ruled petitioner was partial to the school owners and coerced students illegally.
Petitioner was suspended for thirty (30) days without pay and warned against future violations.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution was denied.
He then filed a Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition with a prayer for temporary restraining order at the Supreme Court.
The petition was originally dismissed as moot and academic on June 27, 1995, due to purported expiration of the suspension.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration clarifying that the petition was actually filed on June 2, 1995, while the suspension was still ongoing.
The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and proceeded to consider the petition on its merits.

Whether Section 27 of R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), which states that findings by the Ombudsman supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and that orders imposing penalties like suspension of not more than one month are final and unappealable, is valid or unconstitutional for depriving petitioner of due process and the right to appeal.
Whether Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), which similarly provides that certain decisions are final and unappealable, is valid or unconstitutional under the same arguments.

Whether the thirty (30)-day suspension without pay imposed by the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao was in accordance with law, due process, supported by substantial evidence, and not arbitrary or abusive of discretion.