An appeal shall not stop a decision of the Ombudsman from being executory

be brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person claiming to be entitled to such office.[12]  In this case, it was Del Castillo who filed the action, claiming that he was entitled as a matter of right to reassume the position of GHQ Chief Accountant after his preventive suspension ended on March 11, 2007.  He argues that, assuming his reassignment to the PAF Accounting Center was valid, the same could not exceed one year.  Since his detail at the PAF took effect under SO 91 on April 1, 2006, it could last not later than March 31, 2007.  By then, Moro should have allowed him to return to his previous posting as GHQ Chief Accountant.

But, as Moro points out, he had been authorized under SO 91 to serve as GHQ Chief Accountant.  Del Castillo, on the other hand, had been ordered dismissed from the service by the Ombudsman in OMB-P-A-06-0031-A.  Consequently, he cannot reassume the contested position.

Del Castillo of course insists, citing Lapid v. Court of Appeals,[13] that only decisions of the Ombudsman that impose the penalties of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than a month or a fine of one month salary are final, executory, and unappealable.  Consequently, when the penalty is dismissal as in his case, he can avail himself of the remedy of appeal and the execution of the decision against him would, in the meantime, be held in abeyance.

But, the Lapid case has already been superseded by In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH.[14] The Court held in Datumanong that Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order 7, as amended by Administrative Order 17,[15] clearly provides that an appeal shall not stop a decision of the Ombudsman from being executory.  The Court later reiterated this ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[16]

In quo warranto, the petitioner who files the action in his name must prove that he is entitled to the subject public office.  Otherwise, the person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and the action for quo warranto may be dismissed.[17]

Here, Del Castillo brought the action for quo warranto in his name on April 4, 2007, months after the Ombudsman ordered his dismissal from service on February 5, 2007. As explained above, that dismissal order was immediately executory even pending appeal. Consequently, he has no right to pursue the action for quo warranto or reassume the position of Chief Accountant of the GHQ Accounting Center.

About Erineus

Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Appeal, Decision, Ombudsman, Quo Warranto and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s