REPUBLIC ACT NO.

6770 ( THE OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1998) PENALTIES WHICH ARE FINAL AND
UNAPPEALABLE;

RENATO HERRERA v. ELMER BOHOL

G.R. No. 155320. February 5,2004

Facts: Renato F. Herrera, former Director III at DAR Central Office, approved the request for shift
of item number of Plaridel Elmer J. Bohol, a Senior Agrarian Reform officer at the BARIE. The shift
or item number from 577-1 of Fund 108 to 562-3 of Fund 101 resulted to Bohol ontaining his
salary under Fund 101. When Bohol was informed that he could not draw his salary under such
item anymore because his item was recalled and was given to another person, he charged
Herrera before the Office of the Ombudsman, with Grave Misconduct and/or Inefficiency and
Incompetence. The Ombudsman found Renato Herrera guilty of simple misconduct and was
suspended for one month without pay. Such decision was contested by Herrera and he even
appealed to the CA on the ground that he did not fail to take measures to correct respondent’s
recall; but, such petition was just denied by the CA.A petition for review was raised to the SC
stressing that one month suspension, as stated in the Ombudsman Act of 1998, is appealable
considering that it is not among those enumerated as final and unappealable.

Issue: Whether or not the provision in R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act
of 1998, providing suspension of not more than one month’s salary is final and unappealable.

Held: Sec. 27 of RA No. 6770 states that: “any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty
of public censure, reprimand, suspension of not more than one month’s salary shall be final and
unappealable…”

Salary suspension is an effect of work suspension following the “no work, no pay” principle. It
will be the employee concerned who will be suspended and such suspension without pay,being
final, and unappealable, is clearly expressed the law. RA No. 6770, therefore, is a legal and clear
basis of denying the petitioner’s appeal.