1.

Sandra Uy Matiao files Complaint against petitioners, who are

members of the Regional Traffic Management Office 7, as well as their
Full Case Title: INSP. SAMSON B. BELMONTE, SPO1 FERMO R. GALLARDE,
PO3 LLOYD F. SORIA, PO1 HOMER D. GENEROSO, PO1 SERGS DC. superiors.
MACEREN, PO3 AVELINO L. GRAVADOR, PO2 FIDEL O. GUEREJERO, and 2. In complaint, Matiao alleged that in 2007 in Dumaguete City, the
PO1 JEROME T. NOCHEFRANCA, JR., vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY petitioners flagged her for not displaying the 2007 LTO sticker.
OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT a. Said activity resulted in the seizure and impounding of her
OFFICES, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, vehicle without warrant or complaint for theft.
b. Supposedly, the petitioners assked if she could shoulder their
Doctrine:
lodging expenses at the OK Pensionne House and treat them
1. Given that the SC, CA and RTC have original current jurisdiction, it
does not grant parties seeking extraordinary writs the absolute for dinner while her vehicle was examined.
c. While on their way to dinner, they asked to settle the problem
freedom to file a petition in any court of his choice.
for 300k.
d. Supposedly, the exam revealed that the engine, chassis and
2. Corollary to 1, Strict observance of the policy of judicial hierarchy
demands that where the issuance of the extraordinary writs is also production numbers of Sandra’s vehicle were tampered.
Because of this, the vehicle was placed under the list of stolen
within the competence of the CA or the RTC, the special action for
the obtainment of such writ must be presented to either court. vehicles and was subsequently brought to the PNP-TMG 7
Office in Cebu City under the custody of P/Supt. Gutierrez.
3. The mere fact that a decision imposing the penalty of dismissal from 3. 2007 December: Matiao filed an administrative complaint for Grave
Misconduct and Abuse of Authority against petitioners before the
service is immediately executory does not justify the issuance of an
injunctive writ to stop the implementation. Visayas Office of the Ombudsman.
a. In their Counter-Affidavits, petitioners denied the charges and
4. When the act sought to be restrained can no longer be committed, pleaded, as part of their defense, the findings of Prosecutor
May Flor V. Duka on the criminal charges for Anti-Carnapping
resort to such recourse is rendered futile for prohibition is not
intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. and Anti-Fencing in her Resolution dated December 14, 2007
which upheld, in their favor, the presumption of regularity in
their performance of duty.
Recit - Ready Summary: Police officers dismissed from service attempt to file b. Supposedly, the petitioners were on official duty
petition for injunction directly to SC without waiting for the Ombudsman to c. They also invoked good faith regarding the allegation that
resolve their MR. SC strikes their petition down, primarily due to failing the their hotel accommodation was paid for by Sandra claiming to
requisites of a petition for prohibition (2 nd and 3rd), but also because of be in honest belief that it was P/Supt. Manuel Vicente of the
violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Negros Traffic Management Office (NTMO) who put them at
the OK Pensionne House at the office’s expense, and without
Facts: having an idea that Sandra had paid for it.
 d. They also alleged forum shopping, due to the pending civil that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and accurate remedy in the
case for Recovery of Personal Property before the RTC of Cebu ordinary course of law.
City, which contains similar issues with the administrative case
except for the allegation of extortion. The Office of the Ombudsman argued that petitioners violated the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts, for appeals from decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman decision: Found for Matiao, finding petitioners guildty of Grave Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be brought not
Misconduct. directly to the Court but to the Court of Appeals via petition for review under
a. Supposedly, Matiao submitted substantial evidence such as hotel Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Finally, public respondent submitted that there
receipts, to support her allegations that petitioners demanded and exists no valid ground to grant petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of a
received favors. temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
b. Before MR could be resolved by the OMB, petitioners elevated to the for there is no such thing as a vested interest in a public office, let alone an
SC via petition for Prohibition, asking for a writ of prohibition and TRO absolute right to hold it.
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the order dismissing
them from service. Issue/s: WON petition for prohibition was the proper remedy? (NO)
Note: A month from the petition for prohibition, the office of the Ombudsman
modified its decision by finding petitioners guilty not of Grave Misconduct, but Ratio/ Legal Basis:
of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and further modifying First the Court cited S2, R65 of the RoC, in that:
the penalty from dismissal to suspension from office for a period of six (6)
months and a day without pay. Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial
Petitioners argument: Petitioners claim grave abuse of discretion supposedly or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with
because the Ombudsman issued the dismissal order without proof that they grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
are indeed guilty of demanding and accepting favours from Sandra. there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
Considering that the Decision of the Ombudsman is immediately effective and ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition
executory, petitioners alleged that they were left with no appeal, or any other in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment
plain, speedy and adequate remedy but the instant petition. According to be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings
them, their Motion for Reconsideration would not operate to stay the in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental
implementation of the Decision rendered by the Ombudsman. Thus, they reliefs as law and justice may require.
stood to lose their jobs unless the Decision was stayed by the Court.
The requisites for a writ of prohibition to issue were reiterated, that:
OMB:That the instant petition is dismissible outright. For a party to be entitled a. it must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board or person
to a writ of prohibition, he must establish that the office or tribunal has acted exercising functions, judicial or ministerial;
without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and
 b. the tribunal, corporation, board or person has acted without or in - The immediate implementation of an order of
excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion; and dismissal does not violate any vested right for
c. there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in petitioners are considered preventively suspended
the ordinary course of law. during their appeal.
- No vested right is violated by the application of
nd rd
In the case here, the 2 and 3 remedies were absent. Section 7 because the respondent in the
administrative case is considered preventively
Petitioners were supposed to prove that the public respondent committed not suspended while his case is on appeal and, in the
merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary
excess of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be and such other emoluments that he did not receive
grave. by reason of the suspension or removal. It is
important to note that there is no such thing as a
Public respondent weighed the rights and interests fo the parties via the vested interest in an office, or even an absolute
evidence presented. Just because a ruling is unfavorable does not necessarily right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices
mean that it is issued with grave abuse of discretion, especially if supported by which provide for special immunity as regards
evidence. salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any
vested right in an office.
Petitioners also filed the instant action when they clearly had some other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A remedy is The Court also said that the petition is dismissible for violating the doctrine of
considered plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner hierarchy of courts.
from the injurious effects of the judgment or rule, order or resolution of the - Petitioners did not wait for the action on their MR
lower court or agency. and immediately filed the petition instead of to the
- Motion for reconsideration was still available, as Appellate Court.
granted by Section 8 of Rule III of the Rules of - Given that the SC, CA and RTC have original current
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as jurisdiction, it does not grant parties seeking
amended by Administrative Order (AO) No. 17 extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file a
- In fact, they had availed of such remedy before filing petition in any court of his choice.
the petition for prohibition
Finally, their petition can no longer be given effect. The assailed decision was
The mere fact that a decision imposing the penalty of dismissal from service is already modified. Since the act assailed was modified, there is nothing more to
immediately executory does not justify the issuance of an injunctive writ to restrain.
stop the implementation. Disposition: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for
Prohibition is DENIED.
Rules cited:
Section 8 of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order (AO) No. 17:
Section 8. Motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation: Grounds –
Whenever allowable, a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation may only
be entertained if filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision or
order by the party on the basis of any of the following grounds:
a) New evidence had been discovered which materially affects the order,
directive or decision;
b) Grave errors of facts or laws or serious irregularities have been committed
prejudicial to the interest of the movant.
Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be allowed, and
the Hearing Officer shall resolve the same within five (5) days from the date of
submission for resolution.

Case cited:
1. Villasenor vs. Ombudsman

The nature of appealable decisions of the Ombudsman was, in fact,

settled in Ombudsman v. Samaniego, where it was held that such
are immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed
by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ.

xxxx

Thus, petitioner Villaseñor’s filing of a motion for reconsideration

does not stay the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman’s
order of dismissal, considering that "a decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter
of course" under Section 7

xxxx