G.R. No.

166495 February 16, 2011

ROQUE C. FACURA and EDUARDO F. TUASON vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
RODOLFO S. DE JESUS and EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 184129
RODOLFO S. DE JESUS vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, EDUARDO F.
TUASON, LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA)
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 184263
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, and the
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Former 7th Division)
MENDOZA, J.:

F: G.R. No. 166495 is a petition for certiorari filed by Roque Facura and Eduardo
Tuason assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 84902,
which granted the applications for preliminary mandatory injunction filed by Atty.
Rodolfo De Jesus and Atty. Edelwina Parungao by ordering their reinstatement to
their former positions despite the standing order of dismissal issued by the Office of
the Ombudsman against them.
G.R. No. 184129 is an appeal, by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by De Jesus, from the Decision and
Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 84902, which affirmed the Review and
Recommendation and Order issued by the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-02-0496-J,
which dismissed De Jesus from the government service with prejudice to re-entry
thereto.
G.R. 184263 is another appeal, by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by the Ombudsman, from the Decision and
Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 84902, for ordering the reinstatement of Parungao as
Manager of the Human Resources Management Department of the Local Water
Utilities Administration, thereby modifying the Review and Recommendation and
Order, issued in OMB-C-A-02-0496-J, which dismissed Parungao from the
government service with prejudice to re-entry thereto.
These consolidated cases arose from a Joint Complaint-Affidavit filed with the
Ombudsman by Facura and Tuason against De Jesus and Parungao for violation of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), dishonesty,
gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents, being
notoriously undesirable, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

I:
a. WON an appeal of the Ombudsmans decision in administrative cases carries with
it the suspension of the imposed penalty.

H/R:

YES. The issue has been laid to rest in the recent resolution of the case of
Ombudsman v. Samaniego, where the SC held that the decision of the Ombudsman
is immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an
appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ, to wit:
Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsma ,
provides:
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.
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. The Court held that a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Ombudsman's
decision imposing the penalty of suspension for one year is immediately executory
pending appeal.