OMBUDSMAN V DE CHAVEZ SISON V OMBUDSMAN

ISSUE whether the concerned government agencies whether the Office of the Ombudsman may be
and instrumentalities may execute the Office allowed to intervene and seek reconsideration of the
of the Ombudsman's order to dismiss a adverse decision rendered by the CA. (NO)
government employee from service even if
the Ombudsman's decision is pending
appeal. (YES)

Discussion  Note that for a writ of preliminary It is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance
injunction to issue, the following of a Motion to Intervene is addressed to the sound
essential requisites must concur, to discretion of the court.
wit: (1) that the invasion of the right
is material and substantial; (2) that Simply, intervention is a procedure by which third
the right of complainant is clear and persons, not originally parties to the suit but claiming
unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an interest in the subject matter, come into the case
an urgent and paramount necessity in order to protect their right or interpose their
for the writ to prevent serious claim.10 Its main purpose is to settle in one action and
damage. by a single judgment all conflicting claims of, or the
whole controversy among, the persons involved.
 "Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of
Ombudsman, as amended by Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has
Administrative Order No. 17 --- This a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and (2)
Court held that the decision of the intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the
Ombudsman is immediately adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should
executory pending appeal and may the claim of the intervenor be capable of being
not be stayed by the filing of an properly decided in a separate proceeding. The
appeal or the issuance of an interest, which entitles one to intervene, must involve
injunctive writ. the matter in litigation and of such direct and
immediate character that the intervenor will either
gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of
 The Ombudsman's decision the judgment.
imposing the penalty of suspension
for one year is immediately
executory pending appeal. It cannot However, the government party that can appeal is
be stayed by the mere filing of an not the disciplining authority or tribunal which
appeal to the CA. This rule is similar previously heard the case and imposed the
to that provided under Section 47 of penalty of demotion or dismissal from the
the Uniform Rules on Administrative service. The government party appealing must be
Cases in the Civil Service. the one that is prosecuting the administrative case
against the respondent. Clearly, the Office of the
Ombudsman is not an appropriate party to
intervene in the instant case. It must remain
partial and detached. More importantly, it must be
 Moreover, Section 13 (8), Article XI mindful of its role as an adjudicator, not an
of the Constitution authorizes the advocate.
Office of the Ombudsman to
promulgate its own rules of
procedure. In this connection, It is an established doctrine that judges should
Sections 18 and 27 of the detach themselves from cases where their decisions
Ombudsman Act of 1989 also are appealed to a higher court for review. The raison
provide that the Office of the d’etre for such a doctrine is the fact that judges are
Ombudsman has the power to not active combatants in such proceeding and must
"promulgate its rules of procedure leave the opposing parties to contend their individual
for the effective exercise or positions and the appellate court to decide the issues
performance of its powers, functions without the judges’ active participation.17 When
and duties" and to amend or modify judges actively participate in the appeal of their
its rules as the interest of justice judgment, they, in a way, cease to be judicial and
may require. have become adversarial instead.18
  For the CA to issue a preliminary
injunction that will stay the penalty
imposed by the Ombudsman in an
administrative case would be to
encroach on the rule-making
powers of the Office of the
Ombudsman under the
Constitution and RA 6770 as the
injunctive writ will render nugatory
the provisions of Section 7, Rule III
of the Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman.

Conclusion Thus, Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Therefore, the Office of the Ombudsman does not
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, have the legal interest to intervene. As the CA held
as amended by Administrative Order (A.O.) correctly:
No. 17, is categorical in providing that an
appeal shall not stop an Ombudsman The Office of the Ombudsman is not a third party who
decision from being executory. This rule has a legal interest in the administrative case against
applies to the appealable decisions of the the petitioner such that it would be directly affected
Ombudsman, namely, those where the by the judgment that this Court had rendered. It must
penalty imposed is other than public censure be remembered that the legal interest required for an
or reprimand, or a penalty of suspension of intervention must be direct and immediate in
more than one month, or a fine equivalent to character. Lest it be forgotten, what was brought on
more than one month's salary. Hence, the appeal before this Court is the very Decision by the
dismissal of De Jesus and Parungao from Office of the Ombudsman. Plainly, the Office of the
the government service is immediately Ombudsman, as an adjudicator, and not an
executory pending appeal. advocate, has no legal interest at stake in the
outcome of this Rule 43 Petition.