INITIAL DRAFT CIMATU, JYRUS

REMEDIAL LAW

MELLIEMOORE SAYCON v. COURT OF APPEALS and ROEL DEGAMO

G.R. NO. 238822, 9 October 2019, Special Nineteenth Division (Reyes, A. Jr., J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The issuance of an injunctive relief by the Court of Appeals against the ruling of
the Ombudsman is a grave abuse of discretion as appeal does not deny the executory
force of the ruling of the Ombudsman.

FACTS

Roel Degamo the Provincial Governor of Negros Oriental proposed before the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan an allotment of 10,000, 000 pesos as Intelligence Fund for
the year 2013. The Sanggunian however, instead of allotting the requested amount for
such purposes, appropriated it under Gender and Development projects. Degamo
subsequently vetoed such appropriation and ordered the Treasurer, Accountant, and
Budget Officer to siphon the funds towards Intelligence. The officers complied with the
orders of the Governor but simultaneously made known their objection as it does not
comply with the law.

The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) found the order of Degano
in vetoing the appropriation was valid. However, the act of the Governor in subsequently
placing the amount towards Intelligence Funds was illegal as it is an act of appropriation
which is solely vested in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as defined and limited in the
Local Government Code and other pertinent laws.
 The Commission on Audit (COA) agreed with the finding of the DBM that the
disbursement was illegal to which Degamo opposed by arguing that the Sanggunian
was outside of its jurisdiction in not approving the proposed allocation of fund when it
was already acceded thereto by the Local Development Council.

The Ombudsman found that Degamo is administratively liable for Grave

Misconduct but absolved the officers from conspiracy charges.

Degamo opposed the ruling of the Ombudsman and appealed before the Court
of Appeals (CA) wherein the CA finds that the condonation doctrine should be applied
considering that he was elected subsequent to the erroneous allocation of funds which
led them to issue a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

ISSUE:

Was the Court of Appeals correct in issuing a TRO and WPI?

RULING:

No. For injunctive relief to be issued, there must be a clear showing that the
applicant is entitled to such. The Rules of the Ombudsman clearly show that appeal
does not in any way preclude the executory effect of their rulings. An injunctive relief is
erroneously issued by the Court of Appeals in this case as the remedy for both parties is
preventive suspension in office.

MELLIEMOORE SAYCON v. COURT OF APPEALS and ROEL DEGAMO

 G.R. No. 238822, 9 October 2019, Special Nineteenth Division (Reyes,
A. Jr. J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The issuance of an injunctive relief by the Court of Appeals against the
ruling of the Ombudsman is a grave abuse of discretion as appeal does not
deny the executory force of the ruling of the Ombudsman.

FACTS

Roel Degamo the Provincial Governor of Negros Oriental proposed

before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan an allotment of 10,000, 000 pesos as
Intelligence Fund for the year 2013. The Sanggunian however, instead of
allotting the requested amount for such purposes, appropriated it under
Gender and Development projects. Degamo subsequently vetoed such
appropriation and ordered the Treasurer, Accountant, and Budget Officer to
siphon the funds towards Intelligence. The officers complied with the orders of
the Governor but simultaneously made known their objection as it does not
comply with the law.

The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) found the order of

Degano in vetoing the appropriation was valid. However, the act of the
Governor in subsequently placing the amount towards Intelligence Funds was
illegal as it is an act of appropriation which is solely vested in the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan as defined and limited in the Local Government Code and other
pertinent laws.

The Commission on Audit (COA) agreed with the finding of the DBM that
the disbursement was illegal to which Degamo opposed by arguing that the
Sanggunian was outside of its jurisdiction in not approving the proposed
allocation of fund when it was already acceded thereto by the Local
Development Council.

The Ombudsman found that Degamo is administratively liable for Grave

Misconduct but absolved the officers from conspiracy charges.
 Degamo opposed the ruling of the Ombudsman and appealed before the
Court of Appeals (CA) wherein the CA finds that the condonation doctrine
should be applied considering that he was elected subsequent to the erroneous
allocation of funds which led them to issue a Temporary Restraining Order and
Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

ISSUE
Was the Court of Appeals correct in issuing a TRO and WPI? (NO)

RULING
No. For injunctive relief to be issued, there must be a clear showing that
the applicant is entitled to such. The Rules of the Ombudsman clearly show
that appeal does not in any way preclude the executory effect of their rulings.
An injunctive relief is erroneously issued by the Court of Appeals in this case as
the remedy for both parties is preventive suspension in office.