Case Digest (G.R. No. 149102)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Johnny Alano, G.R. No. 149102, February 15, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Johnny Alano, a train engineer of the Philippine National Railways (PNR), was involved in a railway accident on August 22, 1996 when his train struck the rear of a school bus at the Magallanes Interchange in Makati City. One student, Aaron John L. Zarate, died and other passengers were injured. Atty. Jeffrey-John L. Zarate (brother of the deceased) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging negligence by PNR officers and employees.
The complaint was investigated by the Ombudsman’s Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), which filed an administrative complaint with the Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB) docketed OMB-ADM-0-97-0605 against respondent and two PNR officials for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence. Following AAB recommendations, then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto issued a Resolution dated August 14, 1998 exonerating all respondents, finding the accident attributable to the bus driver and concluding that the complainant failed to prove negligence on the part of PNR personnel.
Complainant moved for reconsideration. By Order dated March 17, 1999, Ombudsman Desierto modified his August 14, 1998 Resolution: while reaffirming that the collision was caused by the bus driver, he found respondent guilty of misconduct for failing to stop the train immediately after the collision to render assistance and imposed suspension for six months without pay. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of that Order was denied on August 12, 1999.
Respondent then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, CA-G.R. SP No. 54967. In a Decision dated April 30, 2001 the Court of Appeals granted the petition and nullified the Ombudsman’s Orders of March 17 and August 12, 1999, holding that the Ombudsman’s August 14, 1998 Resolution exonerating respondent was final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07. The Court of Appeals denied the Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 18, 2001.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution and arguing ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 and Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 render an Ombudsman resolution exonerating a respondent final and unappealable (and thus immune from modification)?
- Did the Ombudsman commit reversible error in modifying its August 14, 1998 Resolution and suspending re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)