Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83237:57237&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:11:38+00:00

Document:
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. ALEX M. VALENCERINA, Respondent.
Assailed in this petition for certiorari1 are the Resolutions dated June 15, 20062 and April 24, 20073of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91977 which enjoined the execution of the Order4 dated June 8, 2005 of Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo in OMB-ADM-0-00-0547, pending appeal.
In view of the foregoing events, the GSIS conducted an investigation on the circumstances surrounding the processing and issuance of the subject bond28 and forwarded its report to the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB),which then conducted its own fact-finding investigation.29] On May 31, 2000, the FFIB issued a Fact Finding Report,30 recommending the filing of appropriate criminal and administrative charges against the concerned GSIS officials31including Valencerina. Accordingly, an administrative case was filed against the said officials for Gross Neglect of Duty, and Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties before the OMB, docketed as OMB-ADM-0-00-0547.
In an Order34 dated June 8, 2005 (June 8, 2005 Order), Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo modified the PIAB-B decision, among others, finding Valencerina guilty, instead, of grave misconduct, but imposing the same penalties.
Valencerina moved for reconsideration but was, however, denied in an Order35 dated September 1, 2005. Dissatisfied, he filed before the CA a petition for review36 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Rules), with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the execution of the June 8, 2005 Order.
Subsequently, in an Order39 dated April 25, 2006, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez directed GSIS President and General Manager Winston F. Garciato execute the June 8, 2005 Order. Thus, in a Memorandum40 dated June 8, 2006, the GSIS informed Valencerina that he is “deemed dismissed from the service as of the close of office hours” that day.
Aggrieved, Valencerina filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction41 with the CA, which, finding the necessity to preserve the status quo between the parties,42 granted the same in a Resolution43 dated June 15, 2006 (June 15, 2006 Resolution). Consequently, the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction44 was issued on June 20, 2006, and in a Memorandum45 dated June 21, 2006, the GSIS directed Valencerina to return to work.
At odds with the return directive, the OMB filed a motion for reconsideration46 of the June 15, 2006 Resolution which was denied in a Resolution47 dated April 24, 2007. The CA pointed out that “[u]nder Rule 43 of the [Rules], an appeal shall not stay the judgment to be reviewed unless the [CA] shall direct otherwise,”48 and that it has resolved to stay the assailed judgment and orders during the pendency of the case.
Unperturbed, the OMB filed the instant petition for certiorari.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
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, 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.
First, Section 3,50 Rule V of the OMB Rules of Procedure provides that the Rules may apply suppletorily or by analogy only when the procedural matter is not governed by any specific provision in the said rules.Here,and as earlier conveyed, Section 7, Rule III categorically provides that an appeal shall not stop the office’s decision imposing the penalty of removal, among others, from being executory.
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 not 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.
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.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the CA’s Resolutions granting Valencerina’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction staying the execution of the Ombudsman’s June 8, 2005 Order are therefore patently erroneous and, thus, tainted with grave abuse of discretion.As jurisprudence dictates, grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence,66 as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated June 15, 2006 and April 24, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91977 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated June 20, 2006 issued in the said case is LIFTED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and Mendoza,*JJ., concur.
* Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated July 9, 2014.
2 Id. at 52-A to 52-C. Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, concurring.
3 Id. at 57-58. Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III, with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, concurring.
6 Id. See also OMB records, Folder 1, p. 4.
8 OMB records, Folder 2, p. 2.
14 OMB records, Folder 2, pp. 10-11.
16 OMB records, Folder 1, p. 7.
22 OMB records, Folder 2, pp. 16-17.
23 OMB records, Folder 1, pp. 8-9.
24 “Campana” in some parts of the records.
25Rollo, p. 65. See also OMB records, Folder 1, p. 9.
27 OMB records, Folder 1, p. 11.
30 Id. at 2-17. Submitted by Graft Investigation Officer II Mateo B. Altajeros, and approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto.
31 Namely, Mallari, Campaña, and Leticia Bernardo, then Manager of Surety Department of the GIG.
36 Id. at 112-135. Dated November 8, 2005.
40 Id. at 216. Issued by Concepcion L. Madarang, Senior Vice-President of the GSIS Administration Group pursuant to the directive of PGM Garcia. See id. at 215.
43 Id. at 52-A to 52-C.
46 Id. at 228-248. Dated June 21, 1006.
48 Id. at 57. Obviously referring to Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
50 Section 3. Rules of Court, application. – In all mattes not provided in these rules, the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character, or by analogy whenever practicable and convenient.
51 See Section 2, Rule I of the OMB Rules of Procedure.
52 See Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
53 G.R. No. 175573, October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA 140.
55 Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
57 See Facura v. CA, G.R. Nos. 166495 and 184129, February 16, 2011, 643 SCRA 427, 452.
58 390 Phil. 236 (2000).
59 438 Phil. 351 (2002).
60 G.R. No. 169241, May 2, 2006, 488 SCRA 574.
61Lapid v. CA, supra note 56, at 249.
62 549 Phil. 511 (2007).
63 Id. at 515-516; citations omitted.
64 529 Phil. 619 (2006).
66 See Spouses Marquez v. Spouses Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014, citing Tagolino v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013, 693 SCRA 574, 599-600.

References: v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.