The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman, as a quasi-judicial body, does not have the legal standing to appeal a Court of Appeals decision that reverses its own decision in an administrative case. This is because the Ombudsman must remain impartial and detached, acting as an adjudicator rather than an advocate. The right to appeal lies with the government agency that initiated the administrative case, not the Ombudsman itself, ensuring fairness and preventing the Ombudsman from becoming an active prosecutor in the appeal process.

Dishonesty Under Scrutiny: Can the Ombudsman Defend Its Disciplinary Action?

This case, Office of the Ombudsman v. Romeo A. Liggayu, G.R. No. 174297, arose from administrative charges filed against Romeo A. Liggayu, a manager at the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), for alleged dishonesty, gross misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. These charges stemmed from discrepancies found in the liquidation of a cash advance he received for expenses related to court cases. The Ombudsman found Liggayu guilty and ordered his dismissal, a decision that was later reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The central legal question is whether the Ombudsman, as the disciplining authority, has the legal standing to appeal the CA’s reversal of its decision.

The Ombudsman’s decision was based on findings that Liggayu had falsified an official receipt and misused a sales invoice to support his disbursement of public funds. Specifically, the Ombudsman alleged that Liggayu had altered an official receipt from New Concepcion Cafe and Restaurant, increasing the amount from P525.50 to P1,525.50. Additionally, it was claimed that a sales invoice from Nature’s Cafe, used for liquidation, was actually issued to the United Moonwalk Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (UMVHAI). However, the CA found these allegations unsubstantiated, pointing to inconsistencies in the evidence presented and questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

In its defense, the Ombudsman argued that the duplicate official receipt on file with the business establishment should be considered more credible, and that Liggayu’s use of the sales invoice constituted misrepresentation. The Ombudsman cited Philippine National Bank v. Garcia, Jr. to support its claim that it had a legal interest in appealing the CA decision. Conversely, Liggayu contended that the PCSO had already cleared him of all accountabilities and that the Ombudsman lacked the standing to file the appeal, as it was neither his employer nor had any interest prejudiced by the CA decision.

The Supreme Court addressed the crucial issue of legal standing, emphasizing that the disciplining authority should maintain impartiality and detachment. The Court cited National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) v. Mamauag, which echoed the principle established in Mathay, Jr, v. Court of Appeals. These cases stipulate that the government party appealing a decision should be the one prosecuting the administrative case, not the disciplining authority or tribunal that initially heard the case.

RA 6975 itself does not authorize a private complainant to appeal a decision of the disciplining authority. Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 authorize “either party” to appeal in the instances that the law allows appeal. One party is the PNP member-respondent when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service. The other party is the government when the disciplining authority imposes the penalty of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the service is the proper penalty.

The Supreme Court elucidated that allowing the disciplining authority to appeal would create an anomalous situation, transforming it from an impartial adjudicator into an active prosecutor. This principle ensures that the focus remains on the facts presented and prevents the decision-maker from becoming an advocate for their initial ruling. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Sison, the Court reiterated that the Ombudsman must remain partial and detached, mindful of its role as an adjudicator, not an advocate.

It is an established doctrine that judges should detach themselves from cases where their decisions are appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d’etre for such a doctrine is the fact that judges are not active combatants in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without the judges’ active participation. When judges actively participate in the appeal of their judgment, they, in a way, cease to be judicial and have become adversarial instead.

The Court distinguished the case from Philippine National Bank v. Garcia, Jr. In the PNB case, the bank, as the aggrieved party complaining of dishonesty, had the standing to appeal the CSC’s exoneration of its employee. However, in Liggayu’s case, it was the PCSO, not the Ombudsman, that initiated the administrative case. Furthermore, the PCSO Board of Directors had already accepted the CA decision and decided not to appeal, indicating their acquiescence to the reversal of the Ombudsman’s decision. The SC emphasized that in cases like this, the government party appealing should be the one prosecuting the case, not the disciplining authority.

Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the Ombudsman lacked the legal standing to appeal the CA decision. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the impartiality of quasi-judicial bodies and ensuring that the right to appeal lies with the party directly affected by the administrative charges. The Court affirmed the CA’s decision, effectively reinstating Liggayu and ordering the payment of his salaries and benefits.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the legal standing to appeal a Court of Appeals decision that reversed the Ombudsman’s decision in an administrative case. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman does not have such standing.
Why did the Ombudsman’s decision get reversed by the Court of Appeals?	The CA found the Ombudsman’s allegations of dishonesty and misconduct unsubstantiated, pointing to inconsistencies in the evidence and questioning the credibility of witnesses. The CA did not find sufficient proof that Liggayu falsified documents or misused funds.
Who has the right to appeal an administrative case if not the Ombudsman?	The government agency that initiated the administrative case, in this case, the PCSO through its General Manager, is the party with the right to appeal, not the disciplining authority. This is to maintain impartiality and prevent the disciplining authority from acting as both judge and prosecutor.
What did the PCSO do after the Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman’s decision?	The PCSO Board of Directors accepted the CA decision and decided not to appeal, which further weakened the Ombudsman’s position in pursuing the case to the Supreme Court. The PCSO effectively agreed with the CA’s reversal.
What was the basis for the Ombudsman’s initial decision against Liggayu?	The Ombudsman initially found Liggayu guilty based on alleged discrepancies in the liquidation of a cash advance, including a falsified official receipt and a misused sales invoice. The Ombudsman believed this constituted dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
What is the significance of the Supreme Court citing the Mamauag case?	Citing NAPOLCOM v. Mamauag reinforced the principle that the disciplining authority should not appeal the reversal of its decision, maintaining impartiality and detachment. This case aligns with the established jurisprudence that prevents quasi-judicial bodies from becoming active participants in prosecuting respondents.
What does this ruling mean for other administrative cases?	This ruling clarifies that quasi-judicial bodies like the Ombudsman must remain impartial and cannot appeal decisions reversing their rulings. The right to appeal lies with the prosecuting government agency, ensuring a fair and balanced process.
How does this case differ from Philippine National Bank v. Garcia, Jr.?	In the PNB case, the bank, as the aggrieved party, had the right to appeal the exoneration of its employee. In Liggayu’s case, the PCSO was the aggrieved party, but it chose not to appeal, distinguishing it from the PNB case where the entity directly affected pursued the appeal.
What was the outcome for Romeo Liggayu?	As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court of Appeals’ ruling in favor of Romeo Liggayu was affirmed, effectively reinstating him to his position and ordering the payment of his back salaries and benefits.

This case highlights the importance of adhering to principles of due process and impartiality within administrative proceedings. By denying the Ombudsman the right to appeal in this instance, the Supreme Court reinforced the need for quasi-judicial bodies to remain detached and objective, ensuring fairness and preventing potential abuses of power.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Office of the Ombudsman v. Liggayu, G.R. No. 174297, June 20, 2012