HEROLD G. UBALDE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, AS THE OMBUDSMAN AND PDG NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, AS CHIEF OF THE PNP, RESPONDENTS.

Ubalde versus Carpio-Morales

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Herold Ubalde against the Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio-Morales, and against the Chief of the Philippine National Police, Nicanor Bartolome. Ubalde was dismissed from the public service after the Ombudsman found him guilty of serious dishonesty and of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. What he attacks is not the finding of guilt itself, but the speed of its execution: the Ombudsman ordered the dismissal carried out at once, before he could even file a motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the immediate executability of Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases, and it tells every reviewee exactly where the boundary of due process lies when a dismissal is ordered.

Procedural History

Ubalde was the respondent in an administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman. After the parties filed their pleadings and counter-pleadings, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution on 30 May 2012 finding him guilty of serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and ordering his dismissal from the public service. On 1 June 2012, even before Ubalde could file a motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman issued a 1st Indorsement directing the immediate implementation of the Joint Resolution and the immediate dismissal of the officials found guilty, Ubalde among them. He was dismissed effective 15 June 2012 by General Order. Ubalde then filed this petition for certiorari, questioning the propriety of his immediate dismissal and alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The respondents answered that the Joint Resolution was a final and executory judgment and that the Ombudsman validly promulgated Memorandum Circular Number 1, Series of 2006, under its rule-making power. Ubalde filed a reply reiterating his arguments, and the case reached the Supreme Court as an original petition for certiorari.

Facts

Herold Ubalde was the respondent in an administrative disciplinary case before the Office of the Ombudsman. After the parties filed their pleadings and counter-pleadings, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution on 30 May 2012 finding Ubalde guilty of serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and ordering his dismissal from the public service.

Even before Ubalde could file a motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman issued a 1st Indorsement dated 1 June 2012, referring the Joint Resolution to the Chief of the Philippine National Police for implementation and ordering the immediate dismissal of the guilty officials, including Ubalde. Pursuant to that indorsement, Ubalde was dismissed from the service effective 15 June 2012 by General Order Number 1016.

Ubalde then came to the Supreme Court, insisting that he had been denied the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the Joint Resolution, that the resolution could not be implemented before the period to move for reconsideration had lapsed, and that Memorandum Circular Number 1, Series of 2006, which enjoins the immediate execution of all decisions, orders, or resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, violates his right to due process.

Issues

• Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the 1st Indorsement that ordered the immediate implementation of the Joint Resolution dismissing Ubalde from the public service.
• Whether or not the immediate implementation of the dismissal, before Ubalde could file a motion for reconsideration, deprived him of his right to due process.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the rule-making authority of the Ombudsman under Republic Act Number 6770, the Ombudsman Act, which the respondents invoked for the validity of Memorandum Circular Number 1, Series of 2006. The Court accepted that the circular was validly promulgated pursuant to the Ombudsman's rule-making power under Sections 18, 23, and 27 of that law, and that authority is what makes the immediate execution of disciplinary resolutions lawful.

The decision also applies Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the provision governing appeals from the Ombudsman to the Court of Appeals in administrative disciplinary cases. The Court held that such an appeal does not stop the decision from being executory, and that the decision shall be executed as a matter of right.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative: the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court applied its earlier ruling in Villaseñor and Mesa versus Ombudsman and Bautista, which had already settled the same question. In cases of Ombudsman decisions that are appealable, such as a decision dismissing a respondent from the public service, an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 does not stop the decision from being executory, and the decision shall be executed as a matter of right. Since the Joint Resolution of 30 May 2012 was an appealable decision, the appeal did not stop it from being executory, and the Ombudsman acted within her discretion in issuing the 1st Indorsement for its implementation.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled against Ubalde. The pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not stop a decision of dismissal from being executory. The Court reasoned that if a motion for reconsideration already filed cannot stop a decision of dismissal from being executory, it is with more reason that such a decision shall be immediately executory even where no motion for reconsideration has yet been filed. There is therefore no deprivation of due process when an Ombudsman decision ordering dismissal is implemented while a motion for reconsideration is pending.

Doctrine

An Ombudsman decision in an administrative disciplinary case that dismisses a respondent from the public service is immediately executory. An appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 does not stay it, and the decision is executed as a matter of right.

The pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not stop a decision of dismissal from being executory. If a motion already filed cannot stop execution, then a decision is immediately executory even before any motion is filed. Immediate implementation of a dismissal is not a denial of due process.

Memorandum Circular Number 1, Series of 2006, enjoining the immediate execution of all decisions, orders, or resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, is validly promulgated under the Ombudsman's rule-making power under Sections 18, 23, and 27 of Republic Act Number 6770.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the immediate implementation of Ubalde's dismissal was upheld.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not stop an Ombudsman decision of dismissal from being executory, and immediate execution is not a denial of due process. Examiners use this case to test the immediate executability of Ombudsman resolutions and the limits of due process in administrative dismissals.