THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 205294. July 4, 2018.]

ELMER P. LEE , petitioner, vs . ESTELA V. SALES, DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER LEGAL AND INSPECTION GROUP; EFREN P.
MARTINEZ, CHIEF PERSONNEL INQUIRY DIVISION; NESTOR S.
VALEROSO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REVENUE REGION NO. 8; and ALL
OF THE BIR AND ALL PERSONS ACTING ON THEIR ORDERS OR
BEHALF , respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

The pendency of a motion for reconsideration of a decision of the O ce of the

Ombudsman does not stay the immediate execution of the penalty of dismissal
imposed upon a public office.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the January 16, 2013 Order 2 of Branch 105, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City
in Civil Case No. Q-12-72104. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for
injunction and/or prohibition and damages, with prayer for writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction and/or writ of preliminary injunction 3 led by Elmer P. Lee
(Elmer) against Estela V. Sales (Sales), Efren P. Martinez (Martinez), Nestor S. Valeroso
(Valeroso), and all of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and all persons acting on their
orders or behalf (collectively, respondents). Elmer sought to enjoin the immediate
execution of the O ce of the Ombudsman's July 16, 2012 Decision 4 dismissing him
from his position as Revenue Officer 1.
In a June 11, 2010 Complaint, 5 the Field Investigation O ce, O ce of the
Ombudsman, through Associate Graft Investigation O cer I Dennis G. Buenaventura,
charged the spouses Elmer and Mary Ramirez Lee (collectively, the Spouses Lee) with
dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. 6 The Spouses Lee were both employed at the Bureau of Internal Revenue as
Revenue Officer I. 7
The Complaint charged that the Spouses Lee were members, stockholders, or
incorporators of four (4) corporations, but did not disclose their interest in these
corporations in their 2001 to 2006 Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth
(SALN). 8 The Spouses Lee also allegedly declared certain vehicles in their SALNs, but
there were no documents to validate these vehicles' existence. However, the Land
Transportation O ce system database disclosed that one (1) vehicle was registered
under their names. 9
The Complaint alleged that the Spouses Lee acquired wealth in the amounts of
P2,353,785.93 and US$13,414.17, which were disproportionate to their legitimate
incomes. It claimed that in 2002, the Spouses Lee had a total aggregate income of
P252,840.00 but had cash in bank amounting to P334,929.93 and US$8,414.17, and a
declared vehicle worth P640,000.00. In 2004, they had a total aggregate income of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 P259,152.00 but had cash in bank in the amounts of P380,000.00 and US$3,000.00, an
P800,000.00 vehicle, and personal effects amounting to P150,000.00. In 2005, they
had a total aggregate income of P259,152.00 but had cash in bank in the amounts of
P290,000.00 and US$2,000.00, a P500,000.00 vehicle, and personal effects amounting
to P30,000.00. 1 0
In its July 16, 2012 Decision, the Ombudsman found the Spouses Lee guilty of
dishonesty and grave misconduct. It found that they separately led their SALNs from
2001 to 2006, apart from 2003 for which they led a joint SALN. However, even though
they led separate SALNs in 2001 and 2002, the entries on the assets, real and
personal liabilities, and business interests and nancial connections were the same.
This proved that they commonly owned the assets in the SALNs, and con rmed the
regime of absolute community of property controlling their property relations. 1 1
In their 2004 to 2006 SALNs, the entries were entirely different, which could be
explained by their claim that they separately owned those real and personal assets. But,
despite the separate lings of SALNs and their claim that they were separated, there
was no evidence on record of any judicial decree of separation that would have
dissolved the absolute community of property. The Ombudsman found that they were
not legally separated and that they continued to be governed by the same property
regime. Further, they failed to declare their business interests and nancial
corporations in all the SALNs they filed, whether jointly or separately. 1 2
The Ombudsman held that they had the willful intent to violate Section 7 of
Republic Act No. 3019, in relation to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1379, when they
failed to declare their true, detailed, and sworn statements of their business and
nancial interests. They did not initiate to correct their earlier non-declaration of these
interests in their subsequent SALNs, which con rmed their persistent disregard of the
existing laws. The Ombudsman found that these acts amounted to gross misconduct,
and ordered them to be "dismissed from service effective immediately with forfeiture
of all of their bene ts, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to their
reemployment in the government." 1 3
On September 11, 2012, Elmer led a Motion for Reconsideration 1 4 of the O ce
of the Ombudsman's Decision. While the motion was still pending, he received a
September 18, 2012 letter from Martinez, Chief of the Personnel Inquiry Division of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, through Regional Director Valeroso. 1 5 The letter directed
Elmer, among others, to turn over all government assets and documents to the head
o ce, transfer his accountabilities, and surrender his Bureau of Internal Revenue
Identi cation Card to the Human Resource Management Unit in the Regional O ce. It
further prohibited him from reporting to the o ce, representing the o ce, instructing
staff members on o cial matters, and signing any documents, among others. 1 6 In an
October 1, 2012 letter, Elmer informed Martinez and Valeroso of his pending motion for
reconsideration, and that the O ce of the Ombudsman's July 16, 2012 Decision was
not yet nal and executory. 1 7 However, Sales, the Deputy Commissioner of the Legal
Inspection Group, as well as Martinez, insisted on Elmer's dismissal. 1 8
On October 12, 2012, Elmer led a Petition for Injunction and/or Prohibition and
Damages with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-12-72104, with Branch 105,
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City. 1 9 He prayed for the trial court to enjoin herein
respondents from executing his dismissal from service. He claimed that the O ce of
the Ombudsman's Decision was not yet nal and executory due to his pending motion
for reconsideration, as the Ombudsman's Administrative Order No. 07 did not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 categorically state the effects of the ling of a motion for reconsideration. 2 0 He
claimed that his dismissal pre-empted and rendered moot his motion for
reconsideration. 2 1
In its January 16, 2013 Order, 2 2 the Regional Trial Court denied Elmer's prayer
for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of preliminary injunction, and
dismissed the case for injunction and/or prohibition. The Regional Trial Court found
that since there was a ve (5)-day period within which the Ombudsman must resolve a
motion for reconsideration, his remedy should have been a petition for mandamus to
compel the Ombudsman to resolve his motion. 2 3 Moreover, in the O ce of the
Ombudsman's Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, decisions and resolutions
of the Ombudsman shall not be stayed by a motion for reconsideration or petition for
review filed before it. 2 4
Since the O ce of the Ombudsman's July 16, 2012 Decision was immediately
executory, Elmer was not entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction. The Regional Trial
Court held that it could not interfere with the Ombudsman's judgments or orders by
way of injunction, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego. 2 5
On February 6, 2013, Elmer led a Petition for Review 2 6 under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court before this Court, assailing the January 16, 2013 Order of the Regional
Trial Court.
Petitioner argues that the Regional Trial Court erred in nding that a motion for
reconsideration does not stay the execution of a decision of the O ce of the
Ombudsman. 2 7
First, he claims that direct resort to this Court, without ling any motion for
reconsideration with the trial court, is proper. He argues that he raises only pure
questions of law, and that his Petition is consistent with Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company v. International Exchange Bank. 2 8
Second, he claims that since Administrative Order No. 07 2 9 did not expressly
state the effects of ling a motion for reconsideration, then the Rules of Court should
apply in a suppletory manner. Applying by analogy Rule 37, Sections 1 and 2 of the
Rules of Court, 3 0 in relation to Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, 3 1 the O ce of
the Ombudsman's July 16, 2012 Decision was not yet nal and executory due to
Elmer's pending motion for reconsideration. 3 2 He argues that Samaniego is
inapplicable, since in that case, this Court ruled that "[t]he decision of the Ombudsman
is immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed by the ling of the
appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ." 3 3 Here, Elmer claims that his case was not
yet pending appeal, but only pending a motion for reconsideration. Further, citing JP
Latex Technology, Inc. v. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc. , he claims that the pendency of
a motion for reconsideration prevents the period to appeal from even commencing. 3 4
Third, he claims that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over his Petition for
Injunction and/or Prohibition. He points out that the case was directed against the
o cials of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and not against the O ce the Ombudsman.
35

Finally, he alleges that he is entitled to a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction

for his reinstatement to the Bureau of Internal Revenue's payroll, and a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the Bureau of Internal Revenue from implementing the
Office of the Ombudsman's July 16, 2012 Decision. 3 6
On August 15, 2013, respondents led their Comment 37 to the Petition, in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 accordance with this Court's February 18, 2013 Resolution. 3 8
Respondents contend that Administrative Order No. 07 was amended by
Administrative Order No. 17, 3 9 and now provides for the immediate execution of the
decisions of the Ombudsman. They further point to Memorandum Circular No. 01,
Series of 2006, which clari es that the ling of a motion for reconsideration or a
petition for review before the O ce of the Ombudsman does not stay the
implementation of its decisions, orders, or resolutions. 4 0 They argue that JP Latex
Technology, Inc. v. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc. and Lapid v. Court of Appeals as cited
by Elmer are inapplicable. They claim that Lapid has already been superseded by,
among others, In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A.
Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH and Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Macabulos .
41 Moreover, Samaniego applies to this case since both involve the immediate
execution of the Ombudsman's decisions. 4 2
As to the Regional Trial Court's jurisdiction, respondents argue that the relief
Elmer sought in his petition for injunction and/or prohibition was tantamount to a
prayer for the reversal of the O ce of the Ombudsman's decision on the merits. 4 3
They claim that he should have awaited the notice of the Ombudsman's denial of his
motion for reconsideration and thereafter le a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court. However, an application for injunctive relief before the appellate court
should also be denied, following Samaniego. 4 4
Finally, respondents claim that Elmer was not entitled to a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction as he had no clear legal right to a stay of the
enforcement of the Ombudsman's decision. 4 5
On September 3, 2013, Elmer filed his Reply 4 6 to the Comment.
On August 6, 2014, this Court issued a Resolution 4 7 giving due course to the
Petition and ordering the parties to submit their memoranda. Respondents led their
Memorandum on October 9, 2014, 4 8 while Elmer submitted his Memorandum on
October 23, 2014. 4 9 These Memoranda were noted in this Court's January 12, 2015
Resolution. 5 0
The issues to be resolved by this Court are as follows:
First, whether or not a pending motion for reconsideration stays the execution of
a decision of the Ombudsman dismissing a public officer from service; and
Second, whether or not a Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over a petition for
prohibition or injunction directed against the execution of a decision of the
Ombudsman.

A pending motion for reconsideration of a decision issued by the O ce of the

Ombudsman does not stay its immediate execution. This is clear under the rules of the
Office of the Ombudsman and our jurisprudence.
The O ce of the Ombudsman issued Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by
Administrative Order No. 17, Rule III, Section 7, which states:
Section 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 ne
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be nal, executory and
unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals on a veri ed petition for review under the requirements and conditions
set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fteen (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.
A decision of the O ce of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall
be executed as a matter of course. The O ce of the Ombudsman shall ensure
that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The
refusal or failure by any o cer without just cause to comply with an order of
the O ce of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, ne, or censure shall
be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.
Moreover, Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, provides:
Section 7 Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, otherwise known as, the
"Ombudsman Rules of Procedure" provides that: "A decision of the O ce of the
Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course."
In order that the foregoing rule may be strictly observed, all concerned are
hereby enjoined to implement all Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions in
administrative disciplinary cases, immediately upon receipt thereof by their
respective offices.
The ling of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review before
the O ce of the Ombudsman does not operate to stay the immediate
implementation of the foregoing Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions.
Only a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, duly issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, stays the immediate
implementation of the said Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions.
Both Administrative Order No. 17 and Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of
2006 were issued by the Ombudsman, an independent Constitutional o ce, pursuant
to its rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution 5 1 and Republic Act No. 6770 5 2
to effectively exercise its mandate to investigate any act or omission of any public
o cial, employee, o ce, or agency, when this act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or ine cient. 5 3 For this Court to not give deference to the
Ombudsman's discretion would be to interfere with its Constitutional power to
promulgate its own rules for the execution of its decisions. 5 4
The Ombudsman is the Constitutional body tasked to preserve the integrity of
public service, and must be beholden to no one. 5 5 To uphold its independence, 5 6 this
Court has adopted a general policy of non-interference with the exercise of the
Ombudsman of its prosecutorial and investigatory powers. 5 7 The execution of its
decisions is part of the exercise of these powers to which this Court gives deference.
Further, after a ruling supported by evidence has been rendered and during the
pendency of any motion for reconsideration or appeal, the civil service must be
protected from any acts that may be committed by the disciplined public o cer that
may affect the outcome of this motion or appeal. The immediate execution of a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 decision of the Ombudsman is a protective measure with a purpose similar to that of
preventive suspension, which is to prevent public o cers from using their powers and
prerogatives to influence witnesses or tamper with records. 5 8
Moreover, public o ce is a public trust. 5 9 There is no vested right to a public
o ce or an absolute right to remain in o ce that would be violated should the decision
of the Ombudsman be immediately executed. 6 0 In case the suspended or removed
public o cial is exonerated on appeal, Administrative Order No. 17, Rule III, Section 7
itself provides for the remedial measure of payment of salary and such other
emoluments not received during the period of suspension or removal. No substantial
prejudice is caused to the public official. 6 1
Notably, at the time the O ce of the Ombudsman's July 16, 2012 Decision was
issued in this case, the amendatory Administrative Order No. 17 and Memorandum
Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, had already been issued. Thus, respondents did not err
in implementing petitioner's dismissal from office.
Likewise, Lapid v. Court of Appeals , 6 2 as cited by petitioner, has already been
overturned by the subsequent cases of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court
Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, 6 3 Buencamino v. Court of Appeals, 6 4
Ombudsman v. Samaniego , 6 5 Ombudsman v. Valencerina , 6 6 and Villaseñor v.
Ombudsman, 6 7 among others.
As ruled in Buencamino v. Court of Appeals: 6 8
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended. Petitioner alleged therein that in denying his
application for a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its
discretion; that pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, the
Decision of the O ce of the Ombudsman suspending him from o ce is not
immediately executory; and that in enforcing its Decision suspending him from
the service during the pendency of his appeal, the O ce of the Ombudsman
violated Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and the rulings
of this Court in Lapid v. Court of Appeals; Lopez v. Court of Appeals , and
Ombudsman v. Laja.
In its comment, the O ce of the Ombudsman countered that the Court of
Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions;
and that the cases cited by petitioner are not applicable to this case, the same
having been overturned by the ruling of this Court in "In the Matter to Declare in
Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH" and that
Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 has been amended by
Administrative Order No. 17, thus:
. . . this Honorable Court emphatically declared that Section 7, Rule
III of the Rules of Procedure of the O ce of the Ombudsman was
already amended by Administrative Order No. 17 wherein the
pertinent provision on the execution of the Ombudsman's decision
pending appeal is now similar to Section 47 of the "Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service" — that is, decisions
of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even
pending appeal .
We agree.
Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, relied upon by petitioner,
provides:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Sec. 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 ne not equivalent to one month
salary, the decision shall be nal and unappealable. In all other
cases, the decision shall become nal after the expiration of ten
(10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion
for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, shall have been led
by him as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. 6770.
In interpreting the above provision, this Court held in Laja, citing Lopez,
that "only orders, directives or decisions of the O ce of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases imposing the penalties of public censure, reprimand or
suspension of not more than one month or a ne not equivalent to one month
salary shall be nal and unappealable hence, immediately executory. In all
other disciplinary cases where the penalty imposed is other than
public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month,
or a ne not equivalent to one month salary, the law gives the
respondent the right to appeal. In these cases, the order, directive or
decision becomes nal and executory only after the lapse of the
period to appeal if no appeal is perfected, or after the denial of the
appeal from the said order, directive or decision. It is only then that
execution shall perforce issue as a matter of right. The fact that the
Ombudsman Act gives parties the right to appeal from its decisions should
generally carry with it the stay of these decisions pending appeal. Otherwise, the
essential nature of these judgments as being appealable would be rendered
nugatory."
However, as aptly stated by the O ce of the Ombudsman in its
comment, Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 has been amended
by Administrative Order No. 17, thus:
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 ne not
equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be nal,
executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may
be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a veri ed petition for
review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43
of the Rules of Court, within fteen (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.
A decision of the O ce of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of
course . The O ce of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the
decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The
refusal or failure by any o cer without just cause to comply with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 an order of the O ce of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend,
demote, ne, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action
against said officer.
Clearly, considering that an appeal under Administrative Order No. 17, the
amendatory rule, shall not stop the Decision of the O ce of the Ombudsman
from being executory, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's application for injunctive relief. 6 9
(Emphasis and underlining in the original, citations omitted)
The facts in this case are similar as to those in Cobarde-Gamallo v. Escandor , 7 0
in which respondent Jose Romeo C. Escandor led a petition for injunction with the
regular courts to stop his dismissal from service, on the ground that he had a pending
motion for reconsideration of the decision of the O ce of the Ombudsman. This Court
held in that case:
Here, Escandor was ordered dismissed from the service. Undoubtedly,
such decision against him is appealable via Rule 43 to the CA. Nonetheless, the
same is immediately executory even pending appeal or in his case even pending
his motion for reconsideration before the OMB as that is the clear mandate of
Section 7, Rule III of the OMB Rules of Procedure, as amended, as well as the
OMB's MC No. 01, Series of 2006. As such, Escandor's ling of a motion for
reconsideration does not stay the immediate implementation of the OMB's order
of dismissal since "a decision of the [OMB] in administrative cases shall be
executed as a matter of course" under the afore-quoted Section 7.
Further, in applying Section 7, there is no vested right that is violated as
the respondent in the administrative case is considered preventively suspended
while his case is on appeal and, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid
the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the
suspension or removal. To note, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an
o ce, or even an absolute right to hold o ce. Except for constitutional o ces
that provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be
said to have any vested right in an o ce. Hence, no vested right of Escandor
would be violated as he would be considered under preventive suspension and
entitled to the salary and emoluments that he did not receive, by reason of his
dismissal from the service, in the event that his Motion for Reconsideration will
be granted or that he wins in his eventual appeal. 7 1 (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)
Petitioner relies on JP Latex Technology, Inc. v. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc . 7 2
to support his claim that a motion for reconsideration stays an execution pending
appeal, but that case is inapplicable here. JP Latex Technology, Inc . involved the
execution of a decision of a Regional Trial Court in a civil case, which is governed by the
Rules of Court, speci cally Rule 39. Here, petitioner's case is an administrative action
speci cally governed by the special rules of procedure issued by the O ce of the
Ombudsman. "[W]hen two rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially
designed for the said case must prevail over the other." 7 3 Petitioner does not present
any reason for this Court to reexamine the doctrine established in the above-cited
cases.

II

Since decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 appeal, it follows that they may not be stayed by the issuance of an injunctive writ. 7 4 It
bears noting that for an injunction to issue, the right of the person seeking its issuance
must be clear and unmistakable. 7 5 However, no such right of petitioner exists to stay
the execution of the penalty of dismissal. There is no vested interest in an o ce, or an
absolute right to hold o ce. 7 6 Petitioner is deemed preventively suspended and
should his motion for reconsideration be granted or his eventual appeal won, he will be
entitled to the salary and emoluments he did not receive in the meantime. 7 7
Further, it is the legally mandated duty of respondents to implement the O ce of
the Ombudsman's decision. If they refused or failed to comply with the Ombudsman's
order to dismiss petitioner from service, then they would be liable for disciplinary
action, pursuant to Rule III, Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended.
As correctly ruled by the Regional Court, petitioner's proper recourse should have
been to le a petition for mandamus to compel the Ombudsman to resolve his motion
for reconsideration within the ve (5)-day period prescribed in the Rules of Procedure
of the O ce of the Ombudsman. 7 8 Otherwise, he should have awaited the
Ombudsman's ruling on his motion for reconsideration, then, in the event of a denial, le
a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED . The January 16,
2013 Order of Branch 105, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-12-
72104 is AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-34.
2. Id. at 35-41. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Rosa M. Samson.
3. Id. at 131-144.

4. Id. at 58-93. The Decision, docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0598-L (LSC), was penned by Assistant
Special Prosecutor III Pilarita T. Lapitan, recommended for approval by Director Nellie P.
Boguen-Golez and Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus A. Micael, and approved by the
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
5. Id. at 44-50.
6. Id. at 59. As defined in Section 3(f) of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 060538, titled
"Rules on the Administrative Offense of Dishonesty," and Section 52, Nos. 3 and 20 of
Civil Service Resolution No. 991936, titled "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service."

7. Id. at 58.
8. Id. at 59.
9. Id. at 61.
10. Id. at 63. The Office of the Ombudsman's narration mentioned a P5,000.00 vehicle for 2005
but its summary table showed P500,000.00. See rollo, p. 62.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 11. Id. at 74-76.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 91-92.
14. Id. at 94-103.

15. Id. at 104-105.

16. Id.
17. Id. at 106-110.
18. Id. at 127-129.
19. Id. at 131-144.

20. Id. at 134.

21. Id. at 138.
22. Id. at 35-41.
23. Id. at 38-39.

24. Id. at 39.

25. Id. at 40-41.
26. Id. at 3-34.
27. Id.
28. Id. at 5.

29. The relevant provisions of Administrative Order No. 07, otherwise known as the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, state:

RULE III
Procedure in Administrative Cases
xxx xxx xxx
   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 (10) 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 RA 6770.
   Section 8. Motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation; Grounds. — Whenever allowable,
a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation may only be entertained if filed within ten
(10) days from receipt of the decision by the respondent on any of the following
grounds:
   a) New evidence had been discovered which materially affects the order, directive or
decision.

   b) Errors of facts or law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of the movant.
   Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be allowed, and the hearing
officer shall resolve the same within five (5) days from receipt thereof.

30. RULES OF COURT, Rule 37, secs. 1 and 2 state:

   Section 1. Grounds of and Period for Filing Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration. —
Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to
set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the
following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
   (a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been
impaired in his rights; or
   (b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the
result.

   Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the
grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to
justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law.
   Section 2. Contents of Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration and Notice Thereof . —
The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written
notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.

   A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for proof of motions. A
motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding section shall be
supported by affidavits of merits which may be rebutted by counter-affidavits. A motion
for the cause mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be supported by affidavits of the
witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated
documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence.

   A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of
the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are
contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or
to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions.

   A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period
of appeal.

31. RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, sec. 1 states:

   Section 1. Execution Upon Judgments or Final Orders. — Execution shall issue as a
matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or
proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been
duly perfected.
   If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith
be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting
therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders
sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.

   The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so
requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 32. Rollo, pp. 14-16.

33. Id. at 16.

34. Id. at 16-17.

35. Id. at 24.

36. Id. at 25-27.

37. Id. at 246-267.

38. Id. at 215.

39. The relevant provision of Administrative Order No. 17, which amended Rule III of
Administrative Order No. 07, states:

   Section 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.

   A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as

a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be
strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without
just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend,
demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.

40. Id. at 252-254.

41. Id. at 256.

42. Id. at 261-262.

43. Id. at 263.

44. Id. at 263-264.

45. Id. at 264-265.

46. Id. at 271-282.

47. Id. at 286.

48. Id. at 289-314.

49. Id. at 315-339.

50. Id. at 341.

51. CONST, art. XI, sec. 13 states, in part:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
    Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions,
and duties:

xxx xxx xxx

   (8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by law.
52. Rep. Act No. 6770, sec. 18 states:

   Section 18. Rules of Procedure. — (1) The Office of the Ombudsman shall promulgate its
rules of procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions, and
duties. (2) The rules of procedure shall include a provision whereby the Rules of Court
are made suppletory. (3) The rules shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in three (3) newspapers of
general circulation in the Philippines, one of which is printed in the national language.

53. CONST, art. XI, sec. 13 (1) states, in part:

   Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions,
and duties: (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
54. Ombudsman v. Samaniego, 646 Phil. 445 (2010) [Per C.J. Corona, En Banc].

55. Alba v. Nitorreda, 325 Phil. 229 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, En Banc].

56. Dichaves v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 206310-11, December 7, 2016

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/december2016/206310-11.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division]; Dimayuga v. Ombudsman, 528 Phil. 42 (2006) [Per J. Azcuna, Second
Division].

57. Reyes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 208243, June 5, 2017

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/june2017/208243.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division];
Joson v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 197433 and 197435, August 9, 2017
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/august2017/197433.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division];
Purisima v. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 219501, July 26, 2017
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/219501.pdf> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division];
Kara-An v. Ombudsman, 476 Phil. 536 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
58. Pimentel v. Gachitorena, 284 Phil. 233 (1992) [Per J. Griño-Aquino, En Banc].

59. CONST. art. XI, sec. 1 states:

   Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

60. In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of
DPWH, 529 Phil. 619 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
61. Ombudsman v. Valencerina, 739 Phil. 11 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 62. 390 Phil. 236 (2000) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division].

63. 529 Phil. 619 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

64. 549 Phil. 511 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].

65. 646 Phil. 445 (2010) [Per C.J. Corona, En Banc].

66. 739 Phil. 11 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

67. 735 Phil. 409 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].

68. 549 Phil. 511 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].

69. Id. at 514-516.

70. G.R. Nos. 184464 and 184469, June 21, 2017

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/june2017/184464.pdf> [Per J. Velasco, Third Division].
71. Id. at 5-6.

72. 600 Phil. 600 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

73. Ombudsman v. Valencerina, 739 Phil. 11, 21 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second
Division].

74. Facura v. Court of Appeals, 658 Phil. 554 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
75. Ombudsman v. De Chavez, 713 Phil. 211 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

76. Cobarde-Gamallo v. Escandor, G.R. Nos. 184464 & 184469, June 21, 2017
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/june2017/184464.pdf> [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
77. Id.

78. Adm. Order No. 7, Rule III, Sec. 8, as amended, states:

   Section 8. Motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation; Grounds — Whenever allowable,

a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation may only be entertained if filed within ten
(10) days from receipt of the decision or order by the party on the basis of any of the
following grounds:

   a) New evidence had been discovered which materially affects the order, directive or
decision;
   b) Grave errors of facts or laws or serious irregularities have been committed prejudicial
to the interest of the movant.

   Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be allowed, and the Hearing
Officer shall resolve the same within five (5) days from the date of submission for
resolution.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com