September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 191744 : September 08, 2010] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. ROMULO L NERI :
[G.R. No. 191744 : September 08, 2010]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. ROMULO L NERI
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 191744 (Office of the Ombudsman v. Romulo L Neri).
This case is about the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to immediately implement the administrative penalty of suspension pending appeal.
On October 23, 2007 three standing committees of the Senate of the Philippines' conducted a joint hearing and investigation to look into allegations that certain high level Philippine government officials brokered the government's National Broadband Network (NBN) project with the Zing Xhing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation (ZTE) of China. During the investigation, respondent Rornulo L. Neri (Neri), then Director-General of the National Economic Development Authority, testified that while playing golf at Wack Wack Golf Club, then Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Jr. assured him of a P200 million kickback on the NBN deal.
On October 23, 2007 Teofisto T. Guingona, among other concerned citizens, filed before petitioner Office of the Ombudsman a joint complaint," charging President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, former COMELEC Chair Abalos, and respondent Neri for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Obstruction of Justice and Articles 210, 211, 212 and 208 of the Revised Penal Code. This complaint was consolidated with the criminal and administrative charges"" that Congressman Carlos M. Padilla also filed against key Department of Transportation and Communication and ZTE officials.
On April 21, 2009 petitioner Office of the Ombudsman rendered a joint decision finding respondent Neri, in the administrative case,4 liable for misconduct and meted the penalty of suspension without pay for the period of six months. Neri moved for the reconsideration of the Ombudsman's joint decision. But while Neri's motion was yet unresolved, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order dated September 25, 2009 directing Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita to immediately implement Neri's suspension from work.
Respondent Neri filed a supplemental motion, praying against the immediate execution of the joint decision. But since the Office of the Ombudsman failed to immediately act on Neri's motion, he filed before the CA a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction,3 imputing on the Office of the Ombudsman grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in directing his immediate suspension from office.
On November 13. 2009 the CA nullified, for being premature, the September 25, 2009 Order of petitioner Office of the Ombudsman since it has yet to resolve Neri's motion for reconsideration when it ordered for the immediate implementation of his suspension. The CA further ruled that under Section 7, Rule III of Ombudsman Rules of Procedure only orders and decisions in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one month salary are final and unappealable, hence immediately executory. In all other cases, such as the case of Neri, the order or decision becomes final 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. The pendency of Neri's motion for reconsideration therefore stays the execution of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Before the Court, petitioner presents the key issue of whether or not the CA erred in restraining the Office of the Ombudsman from immediately implementing the suspension of respondent Neri pending appeal.
The Court required respondent Neri to comment on the petition. On August 16, 2010 Neri complied, stating that on April 19, 2010, prior the filing of this petition, petitioner Office of the Ombudsman denied his motion for reconsideration and thus, imposing on him the administrative penalty of six months suspension. Neri added that on June 30, 2010 Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., issued Memorandum Circular 1, declaring all presidential appointees under coterminous status deemed separated from the service as of noon of June 30, 2010. He belongs to this class of presidential appointees and had since resigned and stopped performing his duties as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Social Security System. These developments, says Neri, rendered the petition moot and academic, hence should be dismissed.
Finding merit in respondent Romulo L. Neri's position that the case has become moot and academic, the Court DISMISSES the petition.
G.R. No. 191744 (Office of the Ombudsman v. Romulo L Neri).
This case is about the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to immediately implement the administrative penalty of suspension pending appeal.
On October 23, 2007 three standing committees of the Senate of the Philippines' conducted a joint hearing and investigation to look into allegations that certain high level Philippine government officials brokered the government's National Broadband Network (NBN) project with the Zing Xhing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation (ZTE) of China. During the investigation, respondent Rornulo L. Neri (Neri), then Director-General of the National Economic Development Authority, testified that while playing golf at Wack Wack Golf Club, then Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Jr. assured him of a P200 million kickback on the NBN deal.
On October 23, 2007 Teofisto T. Guingona, among other concerned citizens, filed before petitioner Office of the Ombudsman a joint complaint," charging President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, former COMELEC Chair Abalos, and respondent Neri for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Obstruction of Justice and Articles 210, 211, 212 and 208 of the Revised Penal Code. This complaint was consolidated with the criminal and administrative charges"" that Congressman Carlos M. Padilla also filed against key Department of Transportation and Communication and ZTE officials.
On April 21, 2009 petitioner Office of the Ombudsman rendered a joint decision finding respondent Neri, in the administrative case,4 liable for misconduct and meted the penalty of suspension without pay for the period of six months. Neri moved for the reconsideration of the Ombudsman's joint decision. But while Neri's motion was yet unresolved, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order dated September 25, 2009 directing Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita to immediately implement Neri's suspension from work.
Respondent Neri filed a supplemental motion, praying against the immediate execution of the joint decision. But since the Office of the Ombudsman failed to immediately act on Neri's motion, he filed before the CA a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction,3 imputing on the Office of the Ombudsman grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in directing his immediate suspension from office.
On November 13. 2009 the CA nullified, for being premature, the September 25, 2009 Order of petitioner Office of the Ombudsman since it has yet to resolve Neri's motion for reconsideration when it ordered for the immediate implementation of his suspension. The CA further ruled that under Section 7, Rule III of Ombudsman Rules of Procedure only orders and decisions in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one month salary are final and unappealable, hence immediately executory. In all other cases, such as the case of Neri, the order or decision becomes final 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. The pendency of Neri's motion for reconsideration therefore stays the execution of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Before the Court, petitioner presents the key issue of whether or not the CA erred in restraining the Office of the Ombudsman from immediately implementing the suspension of respondent Neri pending appeal.
The Court required respondent Neri to comment on the petition. On August 16, 2010 Neri complied, stating that on April 19, 2010, prior the filing of this petition, petitioner Office of the Ombudsman denied his motion for reconsideration and thus, imposing on him the administrative penalty of six months suspension. Neri added that on June 30, 2010 Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., issued Memorandum Circular 1, declaring all presidential appointees under coterminous status deemed separated from the service as of noon of June 30, 2010. He belongs to this class of presidential appointees and had since resigned and stopped performing his duties as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Social Security System. These developments, says Neri, rendered the petition moot and academic, hence should be dismissed.
Finding merit in respondent Romulo L. Neri's position that the case has become moot and academic, the Court DISMISSES the petition.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA.LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA.LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] The Accountability of Public Officers & Investigation Committee (Blue Ribbon); National Defense and Security Committee; and Trade and Commerce Committee.
[2 ] Docketed as OMB-C-A-08-0045-B.
[3 ] Docketed as OMC-A-07-0423-1.
[4 ] OMB-C-A-08-0045-B.
[5 ] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 110693.
