G.R. No. 847 - Hernaez vs. Hernaez

The petitioner is the Office of the Ombudsman, while the respondent is Joel S. Samaniego.
The case involves an administrative matter where the Office of the Ombudsman imposed a penalty, specifically a one-year suspension on the respondent.
The issue arose in connection with the execution of the Ombudsman’s decision and the respondent’s subsequent filing of an appeal.

An earlier decision dated September 11, 2008, had been rendered by the Court regarding this administrative matter.
The petitioner filed a second motion for partial reconsideration aiming to clarify the effects of the appeal on the execution of the Ombudsman's decision.
The respondent, after filing an appeal referenced as CA-G.R. SP No. 89999, also sought a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the execution of the penalty imposed.

Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003):

This provision clearly states that in cases where the penalty comprises suspension, removal, or other disciplinary measures (except fines or lighter penalties), the decision is immediately executory and appealable without stopping its execution.
It further indicates that even if an appeal is filed, the decision shall remain executory pending the outcome of the review.

The respondent’s appeal was filed under the premise that an appeal might stay the execution of the penalty, invoking Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Prior jurisprudence, notably Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, and Buencamino v. Court of Appeals, were considered in analyzing the procedural and substantive issues.

The resolution reconsiders the earlier understanding regarding the stay of execution upon appeal.
The Court examined whether filing an appeal automatically suspends the execution of the Ombudsman's decision and found that — per the specific rules governing the administrative case — it does not.
The issue of whether a preliminary injunction was necessary was raised, with the Court noting that the filing of the appeal itself sufficed under certain precedents, thus rendering the injunction superfluous.

Whether the filing of an appeal by the respondent automatically stays the execution of the disciplinary decision imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Does the procedural framework provided by the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman preclude a stay on execution upon the mere filing of an appeal?

Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is warranted or necessary to halt the execution of the Ombudsman's decision pending the outcome of the appeal.

Can the remedy of a preliminary injunction override the specific rule that mandates the decision’s executory nature?

How to reconcile the special procedural rules governing the Ombudsman's decisions with the general provisions of the Rules of Court dealing with the effect of appeals.

Is the principle that “specialis derogat generali” applicable to ensure that the special rule governing immediate executory action prevails over the general rules provided for in the Rules of Court?