SC rules to axe ex-NEDA director

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has decided to uphold an Ombudsman decision seeking to dismiss from the service a former top official of the National Economic and Development Authority (Neda) in Central Visayas over charges of grave misconduct.

In a decision dated June 21, the highest court has reversed and set aside the appellate court’s ruling that stops the implementation of the dismissal against former Neda-7 director Jose Romeo Escandor.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. found merit on the consolidated petitions of the Office of the Ombudsman and the victim, a contractual employee at the agency, who filed charges of violation of RA 7877 or Anti-Sexual Harassment Act against Escandor.

“Escandor’s filing of a motion for reconsideration (at the CA) does not stay the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman’s order of dismissal since a decision of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course,” the SC decision read.

The FREEMAN is withholding the name of the victim due to the nature of the case.

To recall, graft investigation and prosecution officer II Cynthia Maturan-Sibi, in her decision dated March 21, 2007, found substantial evidence to hold Escandor guilty of grave misconduct and meted him the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties.

The decision was approved by former Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez on June 14, 2007.

The Ombudsman then issued an order directing Romulo Neri, then director general/secretary of NEDA, to implement the order for Escandor’s dismissal.

Escandor, however, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals with application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to set aside and declare the Ombudsman decision null and void.

To support his pleading, Escandor claimed that he sought for the reconsideration of the decision in a timely manner, thus, implementing the same would be premature.

The CA ruled in favor of Escandor and enjoined Gutierrez and Neri from executing the decision, as it had not yet become final and executory, considering the pendency of the motion for reconsideration.

“With these, the CA considered it grave abuse of discretion to insist Escandor’s dismissal from the service, despite the unequivocal pronouncements of this Court in the matter and Escandor's pending motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman,” the CA ruled.

The victim, Gutierrez, and Neri sought for reconsideration before the CA, but it was denied for lack of merit. Thus, they filed consolidated petitions before the SC.

Velasco ruled it has long been settled in number of cases that the Ombudsman’s decision, even if the penalty imposed is dismissal from the service, is immediately executory, despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and cannot be stayed by mere filing of them.

Moreover, he said the Ombudsman is authorized to promulgate its own rules of procedure under the Constitution.

“With that, the CA cannot just stay the execution of decisions rendered by the Ombudsman when its rules categorically and specifically warrant their enforcement, else the Ombudsman’s rule-making authority be unduly encroached and the constitutional and statutory provisions providing the same be disregarded,” Velasco’s decision read. (FREEMAN)