Lee vs. Sales

G.R. No. 205294, July 4, 2018

Third Division

Leonen J

execution of a decision dismissing a public officer from service

In its July 16, 2012 Decision, the Ombudsman found the Spouses Lee guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. It found that they separately filed their SALNs from 2001 to 2006, apart from 2003 for which they filed a joint SALN. However, even though they filed separate SALNs in 2001 and 2002, the entries on the assets, real and personal liabilities, and business interests and financial connections were the same. This proved that they commonly owned the assets in the SALNs, and confirmed the regime of absolute community of property controlling their property relations. 

On September 11, 2012, Elmer filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Office of the Ombudsman's Decision. The Chief of the Personnel Inquiry Division directed Elmer, among others, to turn over all government assets and documents to the head office, transfer his accountabilities, and surrender his BIR ID. It further prohibited him from reporting to the office, representing the office, instructing staff members on official matters, and signing any documents, among others.

Elmer filed a Petition for Injunction and/or Prohibition and Damages with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He prayed for the trial court to enjoin herein respondents from executing his dismissal from service. He claimed that the Office of the Ombudsman's Decision was not yet final and executory due to his pending motion for reconsideration, as the Ombudsman's Administrative Order No. 07 did not categorically state the effects of the filing of a motion for reconsideration.

Question: Does a pending motion for reconsideration stay the execution of a decision of the Ombudsman dismissing a public officer from service?

No.

A pending motion for reconsideration of a decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman does not stay its immediate execution. This is clear under the rules of the Office of the Ombudsman and our jurisprudence.

xxx

The Ombudsman is the Constitutional body tasked to preserve the integrity of public service, and must be beholden to no one. To uphold its independence, this Court has adopted a general policy of non-interference with the exercise of the Ombudsman of its prosecutorial and investigatory powers. The execution of its decisions is part of the exercise of these powers to which this Court gives deference.

Further, after a ruling supported by evidence has been rendered and during the pendency of any motion for reconsideration or appeal, the civil service must be protected from any acts that may be committed by the disciplined public officer that may affect the outcome of this motion or appeal. The immediate execution of a decision of the Ombudsman is a protective measure with a purpose similar to that of preventive suspension, which is to prevent public officers from using their powers and prerogatives to influence witnesses or tamper with records.