Case Summary (G.R. No. 188706)
Relevant Facts and Case Development
Liggayu was administratively charged by the Ombudsman with two main counts: violating the Ombudsman Act for issuing a subpoena without authorization and complicity in contracts deemed anomalous involving the PCSO. Initially, Liggayu was acquitted regarding the second allegation but was found guilty of "Conduct Prejudicial To The Best Interest Of The Service," resulting in a one-year suspension without pay. This penalty was later reduced to six months and one day upon reconsideration. Subsequently, he appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which led to a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the execution of the suspension on March 16, 2000, while the appeal was pending.
Court of Appeals' Action
On May 18, 2000, the Court of Appeals upheld Liggayu’s request by issuing a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, restraining the petitioners from enforcing the suspension order issued by the Ombudsman during the appeal process. The resolution also required the petitioners to explain why they should not face contempt of court for non-compliance with the earlier TRO.
Statutory Framework
The case primarily interprets the provisions of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) and relevant rules of the Ombudsman’s procedural regulations, which stipulate that decisions imposing penalties of censure or reprimand, or suspension for one month or less, are immediately executory and not subject to appeal. However, when penalties are more severe, such as those exceeding one month, the Ombudsman’s decision becomes final only after the expiration of the appeal period or upon the denial of an appeal.
Legal Analysis and Court Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, confirming that since Liggayu had appealed the Ombudsman's decision, the execution of his suspension was stayed. In interpreting Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act and the pertinent rules, the Court emphasized that the right to appeal inherently includes a stay of execution for disciplinary actions that surpass the defined thresholds. Thus, the petitioners’ argument that the Ombudsman’s penalty could be executed immediately was ruled as lack
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 188706)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Rosario N. Lopez and other officials of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) against the Court of Appeals and Atty. Romeo A. Liggayu.
- The central question is whether the decisions of the Ombudsman imposing a six (6) months and one (1) day suspension without pay are immediately executory pending appeal.
Background of the Case
- Private respondent Atty. Romeo A. Liggayu, who served as the Manager of the Legal Department and Resident Ombudsman of PCSO, faced administrative charges.
- The charges included:
- Violation of the Ombudsman Act: Issuing a subpoena without authority related to a case involving Manuel Morato.
- Complicity in Anomalous Contracts: Associated with contracts between PCSO and Golden Lion Films.
- On January 6, 2000, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges regarding anomalous contracts but found Liggayu guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Service for overstepping his authority, initially imposing a one-year suspension, later modified to six months and one day.
Procedural History
- Liggayu's motion for reconsideration was denied; he filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals on March 6, 2000.
- The PCSO implemented Liggayu's suspension on March 8, 2000.
- The Court of Appeals granted a Temporary Restraining Order on March 16, 2000, halting the suspension.
- On May 18, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a Writ of Prelimin