04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly To implement Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 and pursuant to its power to promulgate its rules of procedure, the Office of the Ombudsman came up with Section 7, Rule III of the Administrative Order No. 7, which provides: SEC. 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 on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. The language of Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is explicit and categorical when it states that "any order, directive or decision [of the Office of the Ombudsman] imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary shall be final and unappealable." Contrary to the Deputy Ombudsman's stance, not all items in Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 are rendered void by the Fabian v. Desierto ruling. The only provision affected by the Fabian ruling is the last paragraph in Section 27 which provides that "in all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court." This portion of Section 27 was rendered invalid because it violated Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution proscribing the enactment of a statute which increases the appellate jurisdiction of the Court without its advice and concurrence. Hence, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, which are not final and unappealable, should be brought to the Court of Appeals under the provision of Rule 43. In other words, the only effect of the Fabian ruling is the designation of the Court of Appeals as the proper forum and of Rule 43 as the proper mode of appeal. All other matters in Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 remain binding, such as the provision which deals with the finality of the Ombudsman's decision when the penalty imposed are censure, reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one-month salary. As held in Lapid v. Court of Appeals[17]: Our ruling in the case of Fabian vs. Desierto invalidated Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 and any other provision of law implementing the aforesaid Act only insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. The only provision affected by the Fabian ruling is the designation of the Court of Appeals as the proper forum and of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court as the proper mode of appeal. All other matters included in said section 27, including the finality or non-finality of decisions, are not affected and still stand. Also, in Republic v. Francisco,[18] it was stressed: We agree with petitioner's contention that the decision of the Ombudsman finding respondents guilty of simple misconduct and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44053 6/11