G.R. No. 172206 - Ombudsman vs. De Chavez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172206)

Factual Background

Respondents are former officials or employees of Batangas State University whose conduct the Office of the Ombudsman found to constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct in its Joint Decision of February 14, 2005 and Supplemental Resolution of July 12, 2005, imposing dismissal from service with accessory penalties. The Batangas State University Board of Regents (BSU-BOR) received an Order from Deputy Ombudsman Victor Fernandez on August 18, 2005 directing enforcement of the Ombudsman decisions and, pursuant thereto, adopted Resolution No. 18 dated August 22, 2005 to implement said Order.

RTC Proceedings and Respondents' Relief Sought

Respondents filed a petition for injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 4, seeking to enjoin the BSU-BOR from enforcing the Ombudsman Joint Decision and Supplemental Resolution on the ground that those administrative rulings were on appeal and therefore not final and executory. The RTC dismissed respondents' petition for injunction for lack of cause of action by Order dated September 26, 2005.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Resolution

Respondents appealed the RTC dismissal to the Court of Appeals and sought injunctive relief there. The CA initially issued a TRO on February 17, 2006. The Office of the Ombudsman moved to intervene and to recall the TRO, and filed a Motion to Recall Temporary Restraining Order. On April 7, 2006 the CA denied the Ombudsman’s motion to recall the TRO, granted respondents’ urgent motion for a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on an injunction bond of Php10,000.00, and enjoined the BSU-BOR from enforcing its Resolution No. 18 pending resolution of the appeal.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner assailed the CA Resolution on several grounds, arguing that the CA: disregarded the rule against forum shopping by taking cognizance of respondents’ petition; overlooked Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure by acting on an unverified petition; failed to respect the Ombudsman’s rule that an appeal does not stay execution of its decisions; and erred in granting injunctive relief. Respondents countered that the Ombudsman lacked legal personality to institute the petition before the CA, that the petition was not the proper remedy, and that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the CA Resolution was interlocutory and ordinarily not subject to appeal under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The Court nonetheless found the assailed Resolution patently erroneous and concluded that certiorari would be allowed where the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. Accordingly, the Court relaxed procedural rules and treated the petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court also held that the CA should have allowed the Office of the Ombudsman to intervene in the appeal pending with the lower court because the Ombudsman had a clear legal interest in defending its decision and its power to ensure enforcement thereof.

Merits — Applicability of Ombudsman Rules on Execution Pending Appeal

On the merits the Supreme Court examined the requisites for injunctive relief and concluded that respondents’ right was not clear and unmistakable. The Court applied Section 7, Rule III, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (as amended by Administrative Order No. 17), which provides that an appeal shall not stop execution of an Ombudsman decision except in limited instances, and that an Ombudsman decision in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Court relied on its prior jurisprudence, particularly Facura v. Court of Appeals and Ombudsman v. Samaniego, to reaffirm that the Ombudsman’s rule that its decision is immediately executory pending appeal is a special procedural rule that prevails over the general provisions of the Rules of Court, invoking specialis derogat generali.

Reasoning on Separation of Powers and Rule-Making Authority

The Court reasoned that to allow the CA to stay an Ombudsman decision would be to encroach upon the Ombudsman's constitutionally and statutorily granted rule-making power under Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Sections 18

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172206)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Office of the Ombudsman filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, seeking reversal of a Court of Appeals Resolution dated April 7, 2006.
Ernesto M. De Chavez, Rolando L. Lontoc, Sr., Dr. Porfirio C. Ligaya, Rolando L. Lontoc, Jr., and Gloria M. Mendoza were respondents in the administrative Ombudsman proceedings and appellants before the Court of Appeals.
The Batangas State University Board of Regents (BSU-BOR) received an order from the Deputy Ombudsman to enforce the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision and Supplemental Resolution and adopted Resolution No. 18, series of 2005, to implement said order.
The respondents filed a petition for injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Batangas City, Branch 4 (RTC) seeking to enjoin enforcement of the BSU-BOR resolution while the Ombudsman decision was on appeal.
The RTC dismissed respondents’ petition for injunction for lack of cause of action, and respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and obtained a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction conditioned on a PHP 10,000 injunction bond.
The Ombudsman moved to intervene in the CA appeal and to recall the TRO, which the CA denied, and the CA granted respondents’ urgent motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement pending resolution of the appeal.
The Supreme Court treated the Rule 45 petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65 because the assailed CA resolution was interlocutory but patently erroneous and required immediate correction.

Key Facts

The Ombudsman issued a Joint Decision dated February 14, 2005 and a Supplemental Resolution dated July 12, 2005 finding respondents guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and imposing dismissal from service with accessory penalties.
BSU-BOR acted on a Deputy Ombudsman order dated August 18, 2005 and adopted Resolution No. 18, series of 2005, to implement the Ombudsman’s decision.
Respondents appealed the Ombudsman decision to the CA, and while the appeal was pending respondents sought injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the dismissal.
The CA concluded that the Ombudsman’s decision was not yet final and granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the BSU-BOR resolution pending appeal.
The Ombudsman contended that its procedural rules preclude a stay by appeal and that the CA should have permitted the Ombudsman to intervene.

Issues

Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Ombudsman’s motion to intervene in the CA appeal.
Whether a writ of preliminary injunction is proper to stay enforcement of an Ombudsman decision imposing dismissal from public service while the decision is on appeal.
Whether the BSU-BOR lawfully implemented the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision and Supplemental Resolution by issuing Resolution No. 18, series of 2005, despite the pendency of an appeal.

Petitioner's Contentions

Office of the Ombudsman argued that the CA disregarded the rule against forum shopping by entertaining respondents’ petition and issuing interlocutory relief.
The Ombudsman maintained that the CA overlooked Rule 58, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure when it took cognizance of an unverified petition.
The Ombudsman asserted that under its rules an appeal does not stay execution of its decisions and that the CA had no power to enjoin enforcement of its decision pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman as amended by Administrative Order No. 17.
The Ombudsman contended that respondents were