Case Digest (G.R. No. 172206)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Ernesto M. De Chavez, Rolando L. Lontoc, Sr., Dr. Porfirio C. Ligaya, Rolando L. Lontoc, Jr. and Gloria M. Mendoza, G.R. No. 172206, July 03, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Ombudsman (petitioner) issued a Joint Decision dated February 14, 2005 and a Supplemental Resolution dated July 12, 2005 finding the respondents (Batangas State University officials) guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. On August 18, 2005, Deputy Ombudsman Victor Fernandez directed the Batangas State University Board of Regents (BSU‑BOR) to enforce those rulings; the BSU‑BOR adopted that direction and issued Resolution No. 18, series of 2005, dated August 22, 2005, to implement the Ombudsman orders.
Respondents sought injunctive relief in the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 4 (RTC), praying that the BSU‑BOR be enjoined from enforcing the Ombudsman decisions on the ground that those decisions were on appeal and thus not final and executory. On September 26, 2005, the RTC dismissed respondents' petition for injunction for lack of cause of action. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and, on February 17, 2006, secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining enforcement of the BSU resolution.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a Motion to Intervene and to Recall the TRO before the CA on March 7, 2006; respondents opposed and filed an urgent motion for a writ of preliminary injunction. On April 7, 2006, the CA issued a resolution: it denied the Ombudsman's motion to recall the TRO, declined formal intervention by the Ombudsman (while admitting its pleadings for comment), and granted respondents’ urgent motion by issuing a preliminary injunction (conditioned on a P10,000 bond) restraining BSU‑BOR from implementing its Resolution No. 18 pending resolution of the appeal.
Petitioner brought a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, assailing the CA’s April 7, 2006 resolution on grounds including forum‑shopping, noncompliance with Rule 58 (unverified petition), disregard of the Ombudsman’s rules that an appeal does not stay execution, and lack of entitlement to injunctive relief. Respondents countered that the Ombudsman lacked legal personality to institute the petition, that petition was an improper recourse, an...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court treat the petition filed under Rule 45 as certiorari under Rule 65 and grant relief where the assailed CA resolution is interlocutory but patently erroneous?
- Was the Court of Appeals obliged to allow the Office of the Ombudsman to intervene in the appeal of its Joint Decision and Supplemental Resolution?
- Could the Court of Appeals lawfully issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Ombudsman’s dismissal orders pending appeal, or are such Ombudsman decisions...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)