OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and DINAH C.

BARRIGA

G.R. No. 172224, 26 January 2011, Second Division (Carpio, J.)

Pua, a Municipal Councilor of Carmen, Cebu, filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Visayas, alleging that Villamor, Municipal Mayor; Bebelia C. Bontia (Bontia), Municipal
Treasurer; and respondent Dinah C. Barriga (Barriga), Municipal Accountant, all public officials of
Carmen, Cebu, entered into several irregular and anomalous transactions in their official capacity. These
transactions pertained to the handling of the trust fund of the Municipality of Carmen, Cebu in the
Central Visayas Water and Sanitation Project. Villamor and Barriga denied Pua's allegations.

Subsequently, the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas found Barriga guilty of misconduct and she was
suspended from service for 6 months. The case had become moot and academic with respect to
Villamor and Bontia because Villamor was no longer the incumbent mayor of Carmen, Cebu and Bontia
had already been dismissed from government service.

Upon review, petitioner Office of the Ombudsman modified the decision and found Barriga guilty of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed on her the penalty of suspension for
one year. The motion for reconsideration was denied and the petition for review with the Court of
Appeals was denied for lack of merit.

The Office of the Ombudsman then directed the municipal mayor of Carmen, Cebu to implement the
decision. Barriga filed a petition for review with the CA but it was denied. The case went up to the
Supreme Court which denied the petition. The motion for reconsideration and a second motion for
reconsideration were also denied.

The Office of the Ombudsman advised the mayor again to implement the decision. Barriga then
requested that the implementation of the penalty of one-year suspension be held in abeyance pending
the issuance of the entry of judgment. This was denied. While Barriga's petition for review was with the
CA, the Supreme Court already issued the entry of judgment and Barriga's suspension from service was
implemented by the mayor. Meanwhile, Barriga's earlier appeal to the CA was dismissed but upon
motion for reconsideration, the orders of the Office of the Ombudsman were declared null and void. The
CA explained that the acts of petitioner went beyond mere recommendation but rather imposed upon
the mayor to implement the order of suspension which run counter to its authority. The appellate court
said that the immediate implementation of the Office of the Ombdusman’s order was premature
pending resolution of the appeal. Since Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 gives
parties the right to appeal then such right also generally carries with it the right to stay these decisions
pending appeal. Thus, the CA concluded that the acts of petitioner cannot be permitted nor tolerated.

ISSUE:

Did the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in nullifying the orders of the Office of the
Ombudsman to the municipal mayor of Carmen, Cebu for the immediate implementation of the penalty
of suspension from service of respondent Barriga even though the case was pending on appeal? 26

RULING:

Yes. 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 supplied)

It is clear from the provision that when a public official has been found guilty of an administrative charge
by the Office of the Ombudsman and the penalty imposed is suspension for more than a month, just like
in the present case, an appeal may be made to the CA. However, such appeal shall not stop the decision
from being executory and the implementation of the decision follows as a matter of course.