Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 170815 : March 28, 2007] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. PRISCILLA LAZARO-BALDAZO.:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 28 MARCH 2007

G.R. No. 170815 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. PRISCILLA LAZARO-BALDAZO

Under consideration is the Motion for Clarification filed by the respondent relative to our decision of February 2, 2007, the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed CA decision and resolution are AFFIRMED in toto. Accordingly, the complaint against the respondent before the petitioner is ordered DISMISSED.

In very terse and concise language, respondent (now movant) Priscilla Lazaro-Baldazo (Baldazo, for brevity) queries whether this Court's aforementioned decision denying the Ombudsman's petition for review on certiorari and affirming that of the Court of Appeals which vacated, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman's order recommending Baldazo's dismissal from the service, necessarily includes her reinstatement to her former office and payment of backwages.^[1]

We find merit in respondent's motion. Hence, we shall clarify our decision accordingly.

A civil servant's security of tenure in office is enshrined in the Constitution, Article IX-B, Section 2, paragraph (3), of which states:

(3) No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.

In our decision of February 2, 2007, we ruled that the Ombudsman's order recommending the dismissal of Baldazo from the service has no factual and legal basis, and therefore her eventual removal from office by virtue of such recommendation must necessarily be without any cause provided by law. Removal from office without cause provided by law gravely violates the Constitution; and constitutional infractions could not be taken lightly. This Court not only possesses the power but, more importantly, is tasked with the sacred duty to protect all the basic rights enshrined in the Constitution. It behooves this Court to clarify its February 2, 2007 decision, which remained silent as to the matter of reinstatement into office and payment of backwages, two (2) matters which affect the very fundamentals in the execution of any judgment of illegal or unlawful removal from office. Were the Court to refuse the desired clarification, it might be blamed of being remiss in carrying out its profound task of rendering justice where justice is due.

Any court decision or judgment would become a futile labor if no execution can be achieved therefrom. We have time and again said:

It must be stressed that a judgment, if not executed, would be an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party. It is said that execution is the fruit and the end of the suit and is very aptly called the life of the law. It is also indisputable that the most difficult phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment.^[2] (Emphasis supplied.)

There is no question as to this Court's power to clarify its own decision, for the purpose of once and for all putting an end to the controversy, under the long-standing policy that the Court will always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation.^[3]

There is likewise no question as to Baldazo's right to be reinstated to her former position, what with the ruling of the Court in the decision in question that her dismissal was without just and valid cause. The Court may grant the relief of reinstatement even on the basis of the general prayer, such reinstatement being most just and equitable under the premises.

In its decision in Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman,^[4] the Court granted the petition of Tapiador and reversed and set aside the therein Resolution of the Ombudsman dated January 22, 1997 dismissing him from the government service. In the same decision, the Court ordered therein petitioner Tapiador to be "REINSTATED immediately to his position in the government service more particularly in the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, Manila, without loss nor diminution in his salaries and benefits." (Emphasis supplied.)

The Court cannot deny Baldazo's right to be reinstated to her former position as Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan after the Court reversed and set aside the order of the Ombudsman recommending her dismissal from the service on the ground of dishonesty. Otherwise, the Court's February 2, 2007 decision would be an empty ruling because in the end, Baldazo would not have obtained any tangible and positive relief therefrom. Necessarily, too, by virtue of this Resolution now clarifying the decision of February 2, 2007, any person presently holding the position of Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan, whether in a permanent capacity or as officer-in-charge (OIC), ceases to have any right to continue holding said position, effective immediately, simply because said position, by virtue of this Court's decision of February 2, 2007, was not validly vacated to start with. However, considering that any such person holding onto said position and his/her exercise of the functions thereof had a color of title until this Court ruled otherwise, there would be no question as to the validity of his/her official acts, and his/her entitlement to the salaries derived from holding said office. No refund of salaries received may be required from him/her.

The payment of backwages is likewise the necessary and legal consequence of reinstatement to a former position without loss or diminution of salaries and benefits. Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman,^[5] expressly provides:

Sec. 7. Finality and execution of decision -

xxx xxx xxx

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

xxx xxx xxx

As such, any order of reinstatement would be incomplete without an order for the payment of backwages.

Finally, all of Baldazo's records as public servant in all concerned agencies and instrumentalities of the government shall also be corrected to reflect the fact that she had not been separated from office. Otherwise, her reinstatement without diminution of benefits, which includes retirement benefits, will be prejudiced.

WHEREFORE, the February 2, 2007 decision in this case is hereby CLARIFIED in such a way that the dispositive portion thereof shall now read as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed CA decision and resolution are AFFIRMED in toto. Accordingly, the complaint against the respondent before the petitioner (Office of the Ombudsman), is ordered DISMISSED. The proper appointing authority of the Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan is hereby ORDERED to REINSTATE respondent IMMEDIATELY to her position as Civil Registrar of Bustos, Bulacan with full backwages and benefits from the time she was unlawfully separated from office up to the time of her actual reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights nor diminution in her salaries and benefits. All concerned government agencies are directed to correct the records thereat of respondent to reflect her continuous service.

Let copy of this Resolution be furnished the Civil Service Commission and the Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan through its mayor, for their guidance and information.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Apparently, the Ombudsman's recommendation for dismissal had already been carried out by the Mayor of Bustos, Bulacan and Baldazo had in fact been dismissed during the pendency of review by the Court of Appeal, and later by this Court, which dismissal from service, this Court was unaware of at the time it rendered its February 2, 2007 decision.

^[2] Buenviaje v. Anatalio, A.M. No. P-00-1 361, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 20.

^[3] Latchme Motoomull v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 45302, July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 743.

^[4] G.R. No. 129124, March 15,2002, 379 SCRA 322.

^[5] Administrative Order No. 7, as amended.