Camarines Norte (February 23, 2018) – The latest ruling of the Supreme Court is a game over for Edgardo Tallado after his new Ombudsman’s dismissal order?
The latest Supreme Court ruling has corrected the error of the Court of Appeals to stop the implementation of an Ombudsman Dismissal Order.
On June 21, 2017 the Supreme Court, Third Division promulgated the Decision in G.R. No. 184464, entitled CINDY SHIELA COBARDE-GAMALLO, Petitioner vs.JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, Respondent; and G.R. No. 184469, entitled OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner vs JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, Respondent.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the consolidated petition filed by Cobarde-Gamallo and the Office of the Ombudsman, the court ruling states:
Having been superseded by this Court’s recent rulings declaring that the OMB’s decisions, resolutions and orders are immediately executory pending motion for reconsideration or appeal, it is, therefore, an error on the part of the CA to still rely on those old rulings and make them its bases in granting Escandor’s writ of certiorari and enjoining the OMB from implementing its Decision and Order dismissing Escandor from the service. Notably, the assailed CA Decision and Resolution were rendered in 2008 while the ruling in Buencamino was made in 2007 and the amendments to the OMB Rules of Procedure stating that the OMB’s decisions, resolutions and orders are immediately executory pending appeal were already in effect as early as 2003. Yet, the CA still enjoined the implementation of the OMB Decision and Order on the ground that the same were not yet final and executory as Escandor has pending motion for reconsideration before the OMB. This is a clear error on the part of the CA, which this Court now corrects.
As a final note. The OMB is authorized to promulgate its own rules of procedure by none other than the Constitution, which is fleshed out in Sections 18 and 27 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6770, otherwise known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989” empowering the OMB to “promulgate its rules of procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions, and duties” and to accordingly amend or modify its n1les as the interest of justice may require. With that, the CA cannot just stay the execution of decisions rendered by the OMB when its rules categorically and specifically warrant their enforcement, else the OMB’s rule-making authority be unduly encroached and the constitutional and statutory provisions providing the same be disregarded. 20
WHEREFORE, premises considered, these consolidated petitions are hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated March 25, 2008 and the Resolution dated August 28, 2008 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 02886 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Read and download the full text of G.R. No. 184464 and G.R. No. 184469 from the following link: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jun2017/pdf/gr_184464_2017.pdf
Meanwhile, on February 19, 2018, the Luzon Operation Office of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) represented by its Branch Manager Mr. Joselito C. Roldan, Sr., wrote a compliance letter to the Prosecution and Monitoring Unit of the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon citing their acknowledgement and compliance with the implementation of Ombudsman Decision in relation to the Ombudsman Case No. OMB-LA-16-0360, entitled “Edgardo S. Gonzales vs Edgardo A. Tallado”, finding respondent Edgardo A. Tallado administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of “Dismissal from Public Service with the accessory penalties of cancellation eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding any public office and bar from taking the civil service examinations”.
Accordingly, the GSIS as a safeguard, reported that Edgardo Tallado’s records in the GSIS Master Record and Membership Service Profile, have been centrally blocked with an annotation of the Ombudsman Decision.
See the screengrab copy of the GSIS letter: