Hernandez v.

Ombudsman (Hilarious)
26 February 2014 | Velasco, JR., J. | power of the OMB to dismiss v. power
to recommend the removal
Petitioner/s: Flor Gupilan-Aguilar and Honore R. Hernandez
Respondent/s: Office of the Ombudsman, represented by Hon. Simeon
V. Marcelo; and PNP-CIDG, represented by Dir. Eduardo Matillano
Summary: 2 Customs officials were living lavish lifestyles and PNPCIDG conducted an investigation. They found that Aguilar was guilty,
and Hernandez was her dummy (in case sir asks, Aguilar was really
guilty but they failed to establish that Hernandez was equally guilty).
The decision of the Ombudsman wasnt very clear regarding the penalty
for Hernandez, so a clarificatory hearing was conducted. Petitioners now
bring up the issue of the nature of the decision of the Ombudsmanis it
merely recommendatory or immediately executory? The Supreme Court
ruled that it was immediately executory, and that petitioners reliance on
Tapiador v. Ombudsman (the SC ruled here that Ombudsman does not
have power to dismiss because that power belongs to the head of the
department of the accused official) is merely an obiter dictum and is not
binding. Ombudsman v. De Leon chronicles the rules of procedure of the
Ombudsman (see rationale).
Doctrine: Decisions of the Ombudsman are not recommendatory but
immediately executory. Appeal does not suspend execution of
sentence.
Facts:
1. June 2003: Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) conducted an investigation on the
lavish lifestyles of certain Customs officials, among them Flor
Gupilan Aguilar (Chief of Miscellaneous Division) and Honore R.
Hernandez (Customs Officer III).
a. Annual salary of Hernandez 200k, net worth is 2M, 2
BMWs, 3 houses, 13 trips abroad (9 for her daughters) etc.
2. PNP-CIDG alleges that she violated Republic Act No. (RA) 1379
(An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State any Property
Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by any Public Officer or
Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor) in relation to
RA 3019(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.) and 6713 (Code of

Ethical Standard for Public Officials and Employees)charged her

and Hernandez with grave misconduct and dishonesty.
3. Ombudsman created an investigating panel and placed Aguilar under
preventive suspensions for 6 months without pay, but later it was
lifted because of weak evidence. She filed her counter affidavit and
made excuses about unstated real property in her SALN, trips to the
US, and flashy cars.
4. Ombudsman found Aguilar guilty but the fallo of the decision was
silent as to Hernandez (quoting from the decision, does not make
him administratively liable), so Ombudsman directed that a joint
clarificatory hearing be conducted. Supplemental Decision still did
not contain anything in relation to the guilt or innocence of
Hernandez.
5. Ombudsman found Hernandez to be Aguilars dummy and therefore
equally guilty (both were sentenced to perpetual disqualification
from service and forfeiture of benefits).
Issue/s: Whether or not the decision of the Ombudsman is but
recommendatory or immediately executory.
Ruling: Immediately executory!
Ratio:
1. AO 17 dated September 15, 2003 further amending Sec. 7 of Rule
III, which thus now provides:
Section 7. Finality and execution 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
equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final,
executory, and unappealable. In all other cases, the
decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals x x x.
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being
executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and
the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as
having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid
the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive
by reason of the suspension or removal.