Case Digest (G.R. No. 191176)
Facts:
Department of the Interior and Local Government v. Raul V. Gatuz, G.R. No. 191176, October 14, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG); respondent is Raul V. Gatuz, former Barangay Captain of Barangay Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan.In February 2008, Felicitas L. Domingo filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent for abuse of authority and dishonesty (docketed OMB-L-A-08-0126-C). On November 17, 2008, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found Gatuz guilty of dishonesty and imposed a three-month suspension without pay. The Deputy Ombudsman indorsed the decision to the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government for implementation on May 20, 2009, and the DILG received the indorsement on May 29, 2009.
Respondent received a copy of the decision on June 30, 2009, and moved for reconsideration on July 7, 2009. The DILG deferred implementation pending the motion and inquired of the Ombudsman about the effect of the then-recent Supreme Court ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego. The Ombudsman denied reconsideration on July 10, 2009, and, in answer to the DILG’s inquiry on September 22, 2009, pointed to Memorandum Circular No. 1, s. 2006 stating that filing a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review does not stay implementation unless a TRO or injunction is in force.
Acting on the Ombudsman indorsement, the DILG issued a memorandum dated October 22, 2009 directing its Region III office to implement Gatuz’s suspension. On November 17, 2009, Gatuz filed a petition for declaratory relief and injunction (Civil Case No. 808-M-2009) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos asking the RTC to restrain the DILG from implementing the suspension; a temporary restraining order was issued on November 20, 2009.
The DILG answered (Dec. 15, 2009), contending among others that (a) the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the action effectively attacked an Ombudsman decision, (b) Samaniego applied only to appeals and was not final, and (c) MC No. 1, s. 2006 governed. On January 18, 2010, the RTC (Branch 19) issued a decision declaring the October 22, 2009 DILG memorandum void and permanently enjoining its implementation, relying on Samaniego and treating a motion for reconsideration as a precursor to appeal; the RTC did not resolve the jurisdiction...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief and to enjoin the implementation of the Ombudsman’s disciplinary decision?
- Does the filing of a motion for reconsideration (or an appeal) stay the execution of an Ombudsman disciplinary decision pen...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)