Scribd
Upload
46 views1 page

Legal Appeal and Contempt Case

Secretary Datumanong issued a Memorandum Order dismissing petitioner and co-accused from service while their appeal of an Ombudsman decision was still pending. Petitioner argued this was contempt of court as it interfered with the appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive if supported by evidence. Ombudsman decisions can be appealed, except those imposing light penalties. As petitioner's penalty of 1-year suspension was appealable, the Ombudsman decision was not yet final. However, Secretary Datumanong could not be held in contempt as no malice was shown, and the proper remedy was for petitioner to appeal, not cite contempt.

Uploaded by

Raiza Sunggay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views1 page

Legal Appeal and Contempt Case

Secretary Datumanong issued a Memorandum Order dismissing petitioner and co-accused from service while their appeal of an Ombudsman decision was still pending. Petitioner argued this was contempt of court as it interfered with the appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive if supported by evidence. Ombudsman decisions can be appealed, except those imposing light penalties. As petitioner's penalty of 1-year suspension was appealable, the Ombudsman decision was not yet final. However, Secretary Datumanong could not be held in contempt as no malice was shown, and the proper remedy was for petitioner to appeal, not cite contempt.

Uploaded by

Raiza Sunggay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

In the matter to declare in Contempt of Court Hon.

Simeon Datumanong
FACTS: The Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner
Tel-Equen and several others guilty of dishonesty, falsification of public documents, misconduct and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and ordered their dismissal from the service with
accessory penalties pursuant the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, relative to the anomalous
payment of P553,900.00 of the bailey bridge components owned by the government. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision finding petitioner and two co-accused guilty
as charged and dismissed them from the service while the other two respondents were exonerated
from administrative liability for lack of evidence. Petitioner, together with his two co-accused,
appealed from the decision of the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, while appeal was still pending,
Secretary Datumanong issued a Memorandum Order dismissing the petitioner and his co-accused
from service. Petitioner contends that in issuing the Memorandum Order despite the pendency of their
appeal, Secretary Datumanong committed a contumacious act, a gross and blatant display of abuse
of discretion and an unlawful interference with the proceedings before the Court, thereby directly or
indirectly impeding, obstructing and degrading the administration of justice, and pre-empting the
Court’s sole right to make a decision in accord with the evidence and law. Hence, the instant petition
to cite Secretary Datumanong in contempt of court.
ISSUE: WON respondent shall be in contempt of court by issuing a dismissal memorandum despite a
pending appeal of the subject public official.
SC: Findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are
conclusive. In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10)
days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for
reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court." Further, the Rules of Procedure of
the Office of the Ombudsman likewise contains a similar provision. Section 7, Rule III of the said
Rules provides as follows: "Sec. 7. Finality of Decision – where the respondent is absolved of the
charge and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand,
suspension of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one month salary, the decision
shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration
of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition
for certiorari, shall have been filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. 6770." It is clear from
the above provisions that the punishment imposed upon petitioner, i.e. suspension without pay for
one year, is not among those listed as final and unappealable, hence, immediately executory. Section
27 states that all provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and
executory; and that any order, directive or decision of the said Office imposing the penalty of censure
or reprimand or suspension of not more than one month’s salary is final and unappealable.
In fine, Secretary Datumanong cannot be held in contempt of court for issuing the Memorandum
Order in the absence of malice or wrongful conduct in issuing it. The remedy of the petitioner is not to
file a petition to cite him in contempt of court but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and
correction.

You might also like