Case Digest (G.R. No. 194169)
Facts:
Romeo R. Araullo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 194169, December 04, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Romeo R. Araullo (petitioner) sought review of an undated Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-C-A-09-0437-H that dismissed administrative charges of grave misconduct against NLRC Commissioners Gerardo C. Nograles, Romeo L. Go, Perlita B. Velasco (collectively, respondent Commissioners), and Labor Arbiter Arden S. Anni (Arbiter Anni).The controversy arose from a prior labor case, NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-00581-2001, entitled Romeo R. Araullo v. Club Filipino, Inc., for illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals granted Araullo relief, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement or separation pay; that CA decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 167723, Nov. 29, 2006) and the case was remanded to the NLRC for computation of monetary awards. The NLRC Computation and Examination Unit prepared a computation awarding P2,338,152.25.
Labor Arbiter Fedriel Panganiban initially handled the execution phase but voluntarily inhibited himself on December 13, 2007. The case was later assigned to Arbiter Anni who, on July 29, 2008, issued a writ of execution based on the Computation and Examination Unit’s figures. Club Filipino filed a Motion to Recompute (Jan. 10, 2008) and later a Motion to Quash the writ, arguing the computation had not been approved by the Labor Arbiter and that the writ was issued in violation of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure (Rule XI, Sec. 4).
Before the motion to quash could be heard, Arbiter Anni quashed the writ in an August 12, 2008 Order, enjoined the sheriff, and lifted garnishment notices; two days later he voluntarily inhibited himself from the case, citing possible questions on impartiality due to fraternity ties. Petitioner sought relief from the NLRC First Division to set aside Arbiter Anni’s quashal; the NLRC, through Commissioners Nograles (presiding), Go, and Velasco, denied the petition in an October 29, 2008 Resolution and remanded the records to the arbitration branch of origin for continuation of execution proceedings. A motion for reconsideration by petitioner was denied on March 18, 2009.
On July 28, 2009, petitioner filed administrative and criminal complaints with the Ombudsman charging the respondent Commissioners and Arbiter Anni with grave misconduct under Republic Act No. 3019, Sec. 3(e) and a criminal count under Article 206, Revised Penal Code. The criminal charge was later dismissed by the Ombudsman; the administrative case (OMB-C-A-09-0437-H) likewise resulted in an undated Ombudsman Decision dismissing the grave misconduct charge, reasoning that the writ of execution was improvidently issued in violation of NLRC procedure and that respondents acted to correct a procedural lapse, without manifest bad faith or intent to favor Club Filipino.
Meanwhile, execution proceeded under a different arbiter. Arbiter Fe S. Cellan corrected the computation...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is there substantial evidence to hold the respondents liable for grave misconduct under Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e), and thus warrant reversal of the Ombudsman’s di...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)