Case Digest (G.R. No. 237742)
Facts:
Celso Olivier T. Dator v. Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 237742, October 08, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Celso Olivier T. Dator, then Mayor of Lucban, Quezon, sought relief from the Court contesting the Office of the Ombudsman’s administrative finding and penalty; respondents included Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales in her capacity as Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, and the Department of the Interior and Local Government.The controversy began with a complaint filed on May 2, 2016 by Moises B. Villasenor alleging that during Dator’s immediately preceding term he appointed his sister, Maria Lyncelle D. Macandile, as Chief Administrative Officer/Municipal Administrator via a Job Order and Special Order No. 2 (March 1, 2014) without complying with the appointment-confirmation process under Sec. 443 of the Local Government Code (LGC) and despite express job-order attestations that she was not a relative; Villasenor charged grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority and nepotism.
Dator and Macandile denied the charges, asserting that the assignment was an exigent, coterminous, confidential designation and that the position was not in the plantilla; they further presented examples of prior administrations issuing job orders for similar duties. The Ombudsman rendered a Decision dated March 20, 2017 dismissing charges against Macandile but finding Dator administratively liable for simple misconduct and meting out SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION (later footnoted by the Ombudsman to ONE (1) MONTH AND ONE (1) DAY upon approval on October 11, 2017). Dator moved for reconsideration and clarification and filed a Petition for Injunction (seeking TRO/preliminary injunction) before the Court of Appeals (CA) to restrain implementation of the Ombudsman decision.
The CA, in a Resolution dated February 23, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 154524, dismissed the Petition for Injunction, holding that (1) an original action for injunction was outside the CA’s jurisdiction and (2) the proper mode to assail the Ombudsman decision was a petition for review under Rule 43. Dator then filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s resolution and raising, inter alia, the applicability of the condonation (Aguinaldo) doctrine and the alleged conflicting penalties in the Ombudsman decision. The ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s Petition for Injunction and refusing to give it due course?
- Did petitioner commit forum shopping warranting dismissal of his petitions?
- Does the condonation (Aguinaldo) doctrine apply to petitioner’s case?
- Is petitioner entitled to injunctive relief to prevent implementation of the Ombudsman decision because of the alleged conflicting penalties?
- Was the Ombudsman correct in finding petitioner administratively liable for simple misconduct a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)