OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. JOHNNY ALANO, RESPONDENT.

Office of the Ombudsman versus Alano

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Office of the Ombudsman against Johnny Alano, a train engineer of the Philippine National Railways. The Ombudsman asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had nullified the Ombudsman's orders suspending Alano for six months without pay for misconduct. The case matters because it fixes the moment an administrative exoneration by the Ombudsman becomes immutable: once the respondent is absolved of the charge, the decision is final and unappealable, and the Ombudsman cannot later reopen it and convert an absolution into a conviction.

Procedural History

The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman investigated the train collision and filed an administrative complaint for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence against Alano and two PNR officials. On recommendation of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau, then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto issued a Resolution dated August 14, 1998 exonerating all respondents and dismissing the complaint, finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the school bus driver. On a motion for reconsideration filed by the complainant, the Ombudsman issued an Order dated March 17, 1999 modifying that Resolution: while maintaining that the bus driver was negligent, it held Alano guilty of misconduct for failing to stop the train immediately after the collision to render assistance to the victims, and imposed suspension for six months without pay. Alano's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated August 12, 1999.

Alano then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In a Decision dated April 30, 2001, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and nullified the Ombudsman's Orders of March 17 and August 12, 1999, holding that the Resolution of August 14, 1998 exonerating Alano was final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order Number 07 issued by the Ombudsman. The Court of Appeals denied the Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 18, 2001. Hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Johnny Alano was a train engineer of the Philippine National Railways. On August 22, 1996, at past six o'clock in the morning, he was steering a PNR train along the South Superhighway railway in Makati City. Upon reaching the Magallanes Interchange, underneath the overpass, the train rammed the rear portion of a school bus driven by Clemente Alfaro, which was then crossing the railroad track. A student on board the bus, Aaron John Zarate, died, and some of his co-passengers sustained injuries.

On October 29, 1996, Atty. Jeffrey-John Zarate, brother of the deceased student, wrote a letter-complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman charging the officers and employees of the PNR responsible for the accident. The Ombudsman endorsed the letter to its Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, which investigated and then filed an administrative complaint against Alano, PNR General Manager Jose Dado, and PNR Manager Bonaparte Roque, charging them with gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence for failing to take the necessary precautionary measures to prevent such accidents.

Then Ombudsman Desierto exonerated all respondents and dismissed the complaint, finding that the accident was not due to their negligence, that the place of the accident was not intended for public use particularly by motorists, and that the complainant himself had blamed the school bus driver for being negligent in traversing the area. On the complainant's motion for reconsideration, however, the Ombudsman modified his Resolution and held Alano guilty of misconduct for failing to stop the train immediately after the collision to render assistance to the victims, imposing suspension for six months without pay.

Issues

• Whether or not the Ombudsman may modify or reverse, on a motion for reconsideration, its own resolution exonerating a respondent of an administrative charge.
• Whether or not a resolution of the Ombudsman absolving the respondent of the charge is final and unappealable.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order Number 07, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, provides:

Section 7. Finality 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 and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten days from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari shall have been filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of Republic Act Number 6770.

This rule is the provision the Court applies: it makes an absolution of the respondent immediately final and unappealable, so the Ombudsman's later order converting the exoneration into a conviction is void.

Section 27 of Republic Act Number 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides:

Section 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory. A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five days after receipt of written notice and shall be entertained only on any of the following grounds: (1) New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the order, directive or decision; (2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant. The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three days from filing: Provided, That only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month's salary shall be final and unappealable.

This statute supplies the same rule of finality and confirms that the Ombudsman's rulemaking rests on constitutional authority, so the rule binds the Ombudsman itself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Ombudsman committed a reversible error in issuing its Orders of March 17 and August 12, 1999, which modified its final and immediately executory Resolution of August 14, 1998 exonerating Alano. The Court reasoned that Section 13, paragraph 8, of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution empowers the Office of the Ombudsman to promulgate its rules of procedure, and that pursuant to this authority Administrative Order Number 07 was issued. From the constitutional and statutory provisions and the Rule, the Court drew a clear line:

From the above constitutional and statutory provisions and Rule, there are two instances where a decision, resolution or order of the Ombudsman becomes final and unappealable: (1) where the respondent is absolved of the charge; and (2) 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.

On the second issue, the Court held that a decision absolving or exonerating the respondent of the charge is final and unappealable, meaning immediately executory. It noted that it had already upheld the validity of these provisions in Alba versus Nitorreda, declaring that they do not infringe the due process clause, for the right of appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner provided by law. Since Alano had been exonerated on August 14, 1998, that Resolution could no longer be modified or reversed.

Doctrine

An administrative decision, resolution, or order of the Office of the Ombudsman becomes final and unappealable in two instances: first, where the respondent is absolved of the charge; and second, 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. A resolution exonerating the respondent is final and immediately executory, and the Ombudsman cannot later reconsider it at the instance of the complainant and convert the absolution into a conviction. The right of appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner provided by law. These rules flow from Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order Number 07 and Section 27 of Republic Act Number 6770, both of which the Court upheld as valid.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, so Alano won and the six-month suspension was struck down.

Remember This

Memorize the line: where the respondent is absolved of the charge, the Ombudsman's decision is final and unappealable, and the Ombudsman cannot reconsider its own exoneration. Examiners use this case on the finality of Ombudsman rulings in administrative disciplinary cases, and on the principle that the right of appeal is a statutory privilege, not a component of due process.