G.R. No. 193007 - Diaz vs. Secretary of Fice

The case arises from the Manor Hotel fire tragedy on August 18, 2001, which claimed 74 lives and injured many others.
Several government employees, including the petitioners, were administratively charged in connection with the tragedy.
Petitioner Gerardo R. Villasenor was an electrical inspector from the Electrical Division, while Petitioner Rodel A. Mesa was an inspector from the Electrical Engineering Office of Quezon City.

In Ombudsman administrative cases OMB-ADM-0-01-0376 and OMB-ADM-0-01-0390, different charges were assigned:

Villasenor was charged with grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross negligence.
Both petitioners faced charges for violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).

Villasenor was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service and gross neglect of duty, leading to his dismissal from service with additional penalties.
Mesa was found guilty of similar misconduct, resulting in a one-year suspension without pay.

The Ombudsman approved the Joint Decision on July 26, 2004, and both petitioners filed motions for reconsideration on December 13, 2004.
Subsequently, while Mesa’s motion was resolved (denied on March 2, 2006), Villasenor’s motion for reconsideration remained unresolved.
On April 18, 2006, Mesa appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under CA-G.R. No. 93891, while Villasenor did not appeal pending the unresolved motion.

On August 23, 2006, the Ombudsman directed the immediate implementation of the Joint Decision:

This order was addressed to the Quezon City Mayor and the Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary.

Villasenor and Mesa subsequently filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 121378) on September 20, 2011:

They sought to annul the order and to obtain an injunction to restrain its implementation.

The March 15, 2012 Resolution dismissed the petition on grounds of utter lack of merit.
The June 18, 2012 Resolution denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

His constitutional rights to due process were violated as he was prevented from cross-examining witnesses and was not furnished copies of pertinent orders.
His dismissal could not be deemed final and executory as his motion for reconsideration remained unresolved.

The one-year suspension order should not be enforced while his appeal was pending.
The amendment under Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 17, which took effect in September 2003, should not apply retroactively to his case.

Both petitioners rejected the application of the precedent in Ombudsman v. Samaniego, arguing that it was based on the provisions of Section 7 as amended by A.O. No. 17, which they maintained were inapplicable to them.

The primary issue before the Court is whether the Ombudsman’s order imposing disciplinary sanctions (dismissal for Villasenor and suspension for Mesa) may be immediately executed pending resolution of:

Whether the failure to provide for certain procedural safeguards (such as cross-examination of witnesses and furnishing of documents) affects the executory nature of the decisions.
Whether the retroactive application of A.O. No. 17, which amends Section 7 of Rule III, violates the constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws under Article 4 of the Civil Code.
The relevance and proper application of the precedent set in Ombudsman v. Samaniego in determining the executory effect of行政 decisions pending appeal.