When does an Ombudsman Decision become final and executory?

Where the respondent is absolved of the charge and in case of conviction where the
penalty imposed is public censure, 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.
Back to top
Does an appeal stop the decision from being executory?
No, an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory.
Back to top
What would be the effect if the penalty is suspension or removal and respondent wins the
appeal?
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.
Back to top
How are decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases executed?
Decisions 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 its decisions shall be
strictly enforced and properly implemented.
Back to top
What would be the effect if any officer refuse or fail without just cause to comply with an
order of the Office of the Ombudsman to implement its decisions?
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.
___________________________________________________________________________
Supreme Court expands power of Ombudsman
By Edu Punay | Updated October 14, 2010 - 12:00am
0 37 googleplus1 0
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has expanded the power of the Office of
The Ombudsman to immediately implement the agencys rulings on administrative cases
despite pending appeals in the courts.
In a resolution penned by Chief Justice Renato Corona, the SC ruled that all penalties
imposed by the Ombudsman on administrative cases against erring public officials should be
immediately executory despite pending petitions and appeals in the courts.

The decision of the Ombudsman is immediately executory pending appeal and may not be
stayed by the filing of the appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ, the Court said in the
ruling released yesterday.
The SC modified its September 2008 decision on the case of Ombudsman vs. Joel
Samaniego, which held that only orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman 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 shall be
final and unappealable, hence immediately executory.
The Samaniego case was raised during the probe of the incident investigation and review
committee (IIRC) on the Aug. 23 hostage-taking fiasco when it touched on the administrative
case of hostage taker Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza.
The disgruntled policeman had wanted to be reinstated to service pending his appeal of the
Ombudsmans decision dismissing him from service for extortion.
Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
The new ruling of the Court means the anti-graft office now has more power since it could
now implement rulings on all administrative cases not just those with minor penalties.
In partially reconsidering its 2008 ruling, the High Tribunal gave weight to Section 7, Rule III
of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative
Order 17 dated Sept. 15, 2003.
Under this rule, an appeal filed in courts like the Court of Appeals cannot stop the
implementation of the Ombudsman order.
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, the
SC said.
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 such officer, it added.
The SC explained that this rule of the Ombudsman prevails over provisions of the Rules of
Court, which stay execution of penalties for major administrative cases pending resolution of
courts of appeals filed by concerned public officials.
Specialis derogat generali. When two rules apply to a particular case, that (which) was
specially designed for the said case must prevail over the other, it ruled.

The Court cited as basis Article XI Section 13 (8) of the Constitution, which authorizes the
Office of the Ombudsman to promulgate its own rules of procedure.
It added that Sections 18 and 27 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) also provide that the
Office of the Ombudsman has the power to promulgate its rules of procedure for the
effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions and duties and to amend or
modify its rules as the interest of justice may require.
For this reason, the SC said stopping the implementation of an Ombudsman order would be
encroachment on the rule-making powers of the Ombudsman on the part of the courts.
Clearly, Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
supersedes the discretion given to the Court of Appeals in Section 12, [9] Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court when a decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative case is appealed to
the CA, it stressed.
The SC issued this new ruling upon second partial motion for reconsideration on the
Samaniego ruling filed by the Ombudsman.
Q: Is the claim of Mayor Legaspi that he is still the Mayor of Norzagaray because he did not
receive the Suspension Order personally valid?
A: No. The suspension Order of the Office of the Ombudsman, which was served at his office
located at the Municipal Building and received by his Secretary is valid, sufficient and
effective service of suspension order to Mayor Legaspi under Section 6, Rule 13 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which Rule is suppletory to the Rules of Procedure of the Office of
the Ombudsman.
Q: Is the filing of Motion for Reconsideration or appeal to the Court of Appeals of the
suspension order of the Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Legaspi will stay or prevent
the enforcement of the said order?
A: No. Unlike in ordinary cases filed in court, the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman
is special as it is immediately executory notwithstanding the filing of motion for
reconsideration or appeal by Mayor Legaspi, unless Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is
issued by the Court of Appeals. This is in accordance with Section 7 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, which states That:
Section 7. Finality and execution of decision.- .
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.cra
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.
This rule was adopted by the Supreme Court in long line of cases including the recent cases
docketed as G.R. No.175573, Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, October 5, 2010 and

G.R. No. 172224, January 26, 2011, Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals and
Dinah C. Barriga.
Q: Is it possible for Mayor Legaspi to secure Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or
Preliminary Injunction from the Court of Appeals?
A: To be entitled to TRO or preliminary injunction, Mayor Legaspi has to prove the presence
of clear and unmistakable right, necessity of the TRO, and substantial damage, among others.
Since he was suspended for a cause by the Office of the Ombudsman, the chance of Mayor
Legaspi to secure TRO or injunctive relief is very slim.
Q: Who will implement the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman?
A: Reading the suspension Order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) through its Regional Office was the designated as the
agency mandated to implement the subject Order of the Ombudsman.
Q. Is there a need for Vice Mayor Santos to hold office at the Office of the Mayor before he
can assume as acting municipal mayor.
A: No. It is the law that conferred him the power to assume as acting municipal mayor, not
the office itself.
Q: Why is it that Vice Mayor Santos up to now could not assume as acting municipal mayor
despite overwhelming presence of legal basis and Supreme Courts decision?