THE Court of Appeals has reversed the Ombudsman’s dismissal of Manila International Airport Authority General Manager Cesar Chiong and Assistant General Manager Irene Montalbo over the reassignment of almost 300 airport employees.
In a 13-page decision promulgated on March 21, 2024, the appellate court’s Thirteenth Division set aside the Ombudsman’s August 2023 decision that found Chiong and Montalbo guilty of grave abuse of authority, misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service over the case filed by “anonymous” MIAA officials.
The cases against Chiong and Montalbo involved the reassignment of 285 MIAA employees a year upon the former’s assumption as the top MIAA official.
The cases also cited Montalbo’s designation as MIAA assistant general manager despite her supposed unsatisfactory rating in 2020.
The two were placed under preventive suspension in May last year over the complaint, with the Ombudsman ruling against them three months later.
This prompted Chiong and Montalbo to elevate their case to the CA, which ruled in their favor.
In its ruling, the appellate court explained that there was neither a definitive ruling from the Civil Service Commission that the reassignment of the MIAA employees was invalid, nor at least a referral of the case to the CSC for such prior determination.
At the very least, it stressed that the Ombudsman should have referred the complaint to the CSC.
“Consequently, when the Office of the Ombudsman assumed jurisdiction over the complaint and proceeded to rule on the case without the prior ruling of the CSC, the assailed decision should be struck down for prematurity and lack of factual and legal basis,” the decision penned by Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan said.
Concurring were Associate Justices Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles and Alfredo Ampuan.
“Granting that the Office of the Ombudsman made an independent examination of the reassignments from the perspective of grave abuse of authority or oppression, we find the decision to lack factual basis and substantial support in evidence,” it added.
The CA further held that an administrative decision should have “something to support itself” such as substantial evidence or enough relevant evidence that is adequate for a reasonable mind to justify a conclusion or support a decision.
It added that the Ombudsman merely made a general statement that the “reassignment and designation of MIAA employees” were exercised with clear intent to violate the law, or clear disregard of established rules which contradicts the basic purpose of reassignment and designation.
However, the CA said the basis of such finding rests mainly on four out of 285 cases of employees reassigned.