G.R. No. 212426 - Saguisag vs. Ochoa, Jr.

On December 29, 1999, twenty-two officials and employees of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (OMB) for the Visayas, led by two directors, filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Allegations against Deputy Ombudsman Arturo C. Mojica included:

Sexual harassment against Rayvi Padua-Varona;
Mulcting money from confidential employees James Alueta and Eden Kiamco; and
Oppression for not releasing P7,200.00 benefits due to the OMB-Visayas employees.

They requested appointment of an officer-in-charge from OMB-Manila to prevent harassment and wielding of influence by Mojica over witnesses, threatening a mass leave and exposing the issue to media.

The Ombudsman personally visited Cebu City Office of OMB-Visayas, found the private respondent fearing reprisal, and allowed his swift transfer to Manila for safety and operational reasons.
Assistant Ombudsman Nicanor J. Cruz was installed as Officer-in-Charge of OMB-Visayas.
The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) conducted investigations, finding strong evidence against Mojica on charges of extortion, sexual harassment, and oppression.
The FFIB report was referred to a Committee of Peers (COP) composed of high-ranking officials for evaluation.

The COP recommended converting the investigation to impeachment proceedings.
The Ombudsman rejected this, asserting Deputy Ombudsmen are not removable by impeachment under the Constitution and jurisprudence (notably, cases involving Mojica himself and citing Zaldivar vs. Gonzales).
The Ombudsman directed the COP to evaluate the merits and, if warranted, conduct administrative and criminal investigations.
The COP found sufficient cause to conduct administrative and criminal investigations against Mojica for:

Criminal violations: R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act).
Administrative offenses: dishonesty, grave misconduct, oppression, conduct grossly prejudicial to service, financial interest conflicts (per the Administrative Code).

The COP ordered Mojica to submit controverting evidence on criminal charges on April 6, 2000.
Complainants filed a motion for Mojica’s preventive suspension due to strong evidence and harassment of witnesses.
The Ombudsman directed parallel administrative proceedings to assess the propriety of suspension.
Mojica filed a petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to enjoin suspension and invalidate actions against him, arguing he was an impeachable official and thus immune.
On May 4, 2000, the CA granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) halting suspension proceedings.
Despite the TRO, the COP issued orders on June 6, 2000, deeming Mojica waived his right to submit evidence and submitted cases for resolution.
Mojica filed urgent motions before the CA to enjoin further action and hold respondents in contempt for non-compliance with the TRO.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military filed separate charges against Mojica on June 19, 2000.
Mojica sought injunctions claiming circumvention of CA orders.
The Ombudsman contended that the injunction covered only earlier cases and that Mojica’s term expired on July 6, 2000, negating immunity claims.

On December 18, 2000, despite the expiration of Mojica’s term, the CA ruled in his favor, declaring:

Deputy Ombudsman to be impeachable officials.
All acts and orders of Ombudsman and COP investigating Mojica invalid and cases dismissed.

The CA relied on past jurisprudence including Cuenco v. Fernan, In Re: Raul M. Gonzales, Jarque v. Desierto, and others that had implied Deputy Ombudsmen are impeachable, although it acknowledged contrary constitutional text and framers’ intent.

On January 15, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and, alternatively, a special civil action under Rule 65 arguing:

The CA erred in ruling that Deputy Ombudsmen are impeachable officials.
Stare decisis cannot perpetuate an erroneous obiter dictum.
The CA had no jurisdiction to dismiss pending criminal cases against a retired Deputy Ombudsman.

Whether or not the Deputy Ombudsman is an impeachable official under the 1987 Constitution.
Whether the court should adhere to prior decisions (stare decisis) regarding the impeachability of Deputy Ombudsmen despite conflicting constitutional provisions and framers’ intent.
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to dismiss criminal and administrative cases against a retired Deputy Ombudsman.
Whether the Ombudsman can proceed with investigation and prosecution of a Deputy Ombudsman for criminal and administrative liabilities notwithstanding his immunity while in office.