FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 214407, March 03, 2021
COMMISSIONER CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING, Petitioner, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND CHAIRPERSON LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GAERLAN, J.:
In compliance with the foregoing directive, Chairperson Rosales issued the second assailed memorandum, which reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
TO: CHAIRPERSON LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES Commission on Human Rights SUBJECT: OMBUDSMAN JOINT RESOLUTION DATED 28 AUGUST 2014 DATE: 24 September 2014
In compliance with the aforementioned Joint Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in the cases docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0354 and OMB-C-A-13-0334 (MA. REGINA D. EUGENIO v. CECILIA RACHEL V QUISUMBING, Salary Grade 30, Commissioner, Commission on Human Rights) and OMB-C-C-14-0011 and OMB-C-A-14-0009 (MA. REGINA D. EUGENIO, ELIZABETH DIEGO-RUIZON, ALEXANDER B. FERNANDEZ and JESSE K. AYUSTE vs. CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING, Salary Grade 30, Commissioner, Commission on Human Rights), you are hereby directed to DISMISS Commissioner Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing from the service with imposition of all its accessory penalties.
Please submit to the Office, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, your compliance to this directive.
(Signed)
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On October 14, 2014, Quisumbing filed the present petition. Subsequently, the CHR and the Solicitor General (on Secretary Ochoa's behalf) filed their respective comments.22 On November 11, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order denying Quisumbing's September 15, 2014 motion for reconsideration.23
FOR : COMM. CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING SUBJECT : ORDER OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE DATE : 01 October 2014
Pursuant to its Joint Resolution dated 28 August 2014 in cases docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0354 and OMB-C-A-13-0334 (Eugenio vs. Quisumbing) and OM-C-C-14-0011 and C-A-0009 (Eugenio, et al. vs. Quisumbing), the Office of the Ombudsman found you guilty of violating Section 7 (d) of R.A. No. 6713 and Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, including all its accessory penalties of (a) cancellation of eligibility, (b) forfeiture of retirement benefits and (c) disqualification for re-employment in the government service.
In view of the said Joint Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of the President through a Memorandum from the Executive Secretary dated 24 September 2014 directed the undersigned to dismiss you from the service with imposition of all its accessory penalties.
WHEREFORE, in compliance with the foregoing Joint Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman and Directive from the Office of the President, you are hereby DISMISSED from the service as Commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights effective immediately.
(Signed)
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 7. Finality of decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one-month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari shall have been filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770.This provision was amended thrice. On July 31, 2000, A.O. No. 14-0035 added a second paragraph:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one-month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari shall have been filed by the respondent, as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770.Less than a month later, A.O. No. 14-A-0036 was issued. With the amendments introduced thereby, the provision now read:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins such appeal and shall be paid his salary and such other emoluments during the pendency of the appeal.
Sec. 7. Finality and execution of decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one-month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration.In 2003, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure was amended in its entirety by A.O. No. 17, series of 2003.37 This amendment is the current version in effect. It reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
SEC. 7. Finality and Execution of Decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one-month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.On April 11, 2006, the Ombudsman issued Memorandum Circular No. 1, series of 2006, which explicitly states that "[t]he filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review before the Office of the Ombudsman does not operate to stay the immediate implementation of the foregoing Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions." Consequently, the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman's dismissal orders during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration has been upheld thrice by the Supreme Court. In Villaseñor, et al. v. Ombudsman, et al.,38 the Court ruled that a dismissal order from the Ombudsman is executory even pending reconsideration. The Court said:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. (Emphasis and underlining ours)
[P]etitioner Villaseñor's filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman's order of dismissal, considering that "a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course" under Section 7 [of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by A.O. No. 17]. As already explained, no vested right of Villaseñor would be violated as he would be considered under preventive suspension, and entitled to the salary and emoluments he did not receive in the event that he wins his eventual appeal.39 (Citations omitted)In Cobarde-Gamallo v. Escandor,40 the respondent public officer assailed the Ombudsman's order directing the immediate implementation of his dismissal despite the pendency of his motion for reconsideration through certiorari and preliminary injunction. The CA enjoined the Ombudsman from enforcing the penalty of dismissal until after the latter's decision becomes final and executory. Echoing Villaseñor, the Court held:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
[The decision imposing the penalty of dismissal on Escandor] is immediately executory even pending appeal or in his case even pending his motion for reconsideration before the OMB as that is the clear mandate of Section 7, Rule III of the OMB Rules of Procedure, as amended, as well as the OMB's MC No. 01, Series of 2006. As such, Escandor's filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay the immediate implementation of the OMB's order of dismissal since "a decision of the [OMB] in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course" under the afore-quoted Section 7.The Court went on to rule that given the Ombudsman's constitutional and statutory power to promulgate, amend, and modify its rules of procedure, the CA cannot enjoin the implementation of decisions rendered by the Ombudsman when the latter's rules clearly and specifically sanction the immediate implementation thereof.42
Further, in applying Section 7, there is no vested right that is violated as the respondent in the administrative case is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal and, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. To note, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. x x x Hence, no vested right of Escandor would be violated as he would be considered under preventive suspension and entitled to the salary and emoluments that he did not receive, by reason of his dismissal from the service, in the event that his Motion for Reconsideration will be granted or that he wins in his eventual appeal.41 (Citations omitted)
Both [A.O.] No. 17 and Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of2006 were issued by the Ombudsman, an independent Constitutional office, pursuant to its rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution and [R.A.] No. 6770 to effectively exercise its mandate to investigate any act or omission of any public official, employee, office, or agency, when this act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. For this Court to not give deference to the Ombudsman's discretion would be to interfere with its Constitutional power to promulgate its own rules for the execution of its decisions.47chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe jurisprudence is clear: a motion for reconsideration does not stay the immediate implementation of a dismissal order (or any decision in an administrative case for that matter) issued by the Ombudsman. There is no difference between an appeal and a motion for reconsideration insofar as their effect on the immediate implementation of the assailed order is concerned. The Ombudsman Act and the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure expressly allow the filing of a motion for reconsideration from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. What the Ombudsman Rules proscribe, however, is the stay of the execution of such decisions pending reconsideration and appeal. Rule III, Section 7 of the Ombudsman Rules states in part that "[a] decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course." The operative phrase in this sentence is "matter of course," which has been defined as "[s]omething done as a part of a routine process or procedure."48 Stated differently, the execution of decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be made part and parcel of standard procedure, regardless of the availment of remedies therefrom. Memorandum Circular No. 01, series of 2006 merely serves to clarify this rule. The reason for this rule, which, it must be reiterated, is rooted in the uniquely important function and wide-reaching powers of the Ombudsman, is stated in Lee as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.In the case at bar, the assailed memoranda are based on the Ombudsman's August 28, 2014 Joint Resolution which imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service on Quisumbing. Moreover, Quisumbing does not dispute the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over her position as CHR Commissioner. As demonstrated above, the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution is immediately executory, despite the pendency of Quisumbing's motion for reconsideration. Contrary to Quisumbing's assertion, the Ombudsman need not issue a separate order for the implementation of its August 28, 2014 Joint Resolution, precisely because the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure already ordain the immediate implementation thereof. Since the Joint Resolution is immediately executory, respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion when they issued the assailed memoranda. In fact, they were simply following the law and giving due respect to the orders of the Ombudsman.
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.49chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-21.
2 Id. at 22.
3 Id. at 23.
4 Id. at 64-86. Signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Jasmine Ann B. Gapatan and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
5 Otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
6 Otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
7 Id. at 67-68, 71-72. According to Eugenio, Quisumbing trained her to answer in a scripted fashion to certain questions, viz.:
Q: Sino ba ang magaling dito sa CHR? A: Kayo (referring to Quisumbing) po.
Q: Sino ba ang matalino sa CHR? A: Kayo po.
Q: Sino ba ang maraming ginagawa at pagod na pagod sa CHR? A: Kayo po.
Q: Sino ang pumipirma ng DTR (Daily Time Record)? A: Kayo po.
Q: Sino ang nagpapasweldo? A: Kayo po.
Q: Sino ba dito sa CHR ang hindi nagkakakama? A: Kayo po.
Q: Si Comm. Maning ba magaling sa computer? A: Hindi po.
Q: Si Comm. Mavic magoling ba? A: Hindi rin po.
Q: Kayo nyo ba kausapin ang Presidente? A: Hindi po.
8 Id. at 67-69.
9 Id. at 69-70.
10 Id. at 71-72.
11 Id. at 72.
12 Id. at 74-76.
13 Id. at 76-82.
14 SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.
15 Id. at 83.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 84.
18 Id. at 86.
19 Id. at 9, 24-37.
20 Id. at 22.
21 Id. at 23.
22 Id. at 105-111, 126-134.
23 Id. at 138-167; signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Jasmine Ann B. Gapatan and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
24 Id. at 10.
25 254 Phil. 156 (1989).
26Rollo, pp. 11-15.
27 Id. at 15-17.
28 Id. at 105-107.
29 Id. at 108.
30 Id. at 130-131.
31 Id. at 131-132.
32 Id. at 132.
33 CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Section 13(8).
34 Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 07, April 10, 1990. Published in 99 Official Gazette (No. 4) 6869 (2003) and in 14 National Administrative Register (No. 3) 1583 (2003).
35 Published in 99 Official Gazette (No. 44) 6878 (2003).
36 Published in 99 Official Gazette (No. 44) 6879 (2003).
37 Published in 99 Official Gazette (No. 44) 6880 (2003) and in 14 National Administrative Register (No. 3) 1594 (2003).
38 735 Phil. 409 (2014).
39 Id. at 419.
40 811 Phil. 378 (2017).
41 Id. at 386-387.
42 Id. at 388.
43 G.R. No. 205294, July 4, 2018.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.), p. 1068.
49 Supra note 43.
50Rollo, pp. 138-167.
51Fabian v. Desierto, 356 Phil. 787 (1998); Gatchalian v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018; Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003.cralawredlibrary