THE Court of Appeals (CA) has modified the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing Albay Gov. Noel Rosal from the service and permanently barring him from holding public office, and suspending his wife, then Legazpi City mayor Carmen Geraldine Rosal, for one year.
In a 15-page ruling promulgated on May 30, 2025, the CA’s Fifteenth Division, through Associate Justice Germano Francisco Legaspi, partly granted the petition of the Rosal couple and modified the Ombudsman’s resolution dated June 18, 2024.
“Petitioner Noel Rosal is found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and is meted the penalty of suspension from the service for one year,” stated the CA ruling, which was concurred by Associate Justices Alfonso Ruiz II and Mary Josephine Lazaro.
The appellate court likewise ruled that “petitioner Carmen Geraldine Rosal is found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and is meted the penalty of suspension from the service for nine months.”
In the event that the suspension can no longer be served by reason of the petitioners’ separation from the service, the CA said that they “shall pay a fine equivalent to their respective salary for one year and nine months, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman.”
Rosal has managed to reclaim Albay’s gubernatorial post during the May 12 elections, beating his closest rival, congressman Joey Salceda.
The Ombudsman’s decision followed a complaint filed in 2022 by one Adrian Nacion Loterte accusing the Rosals of oppression, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The complaint said the governor’s order reassigning several department heads violated Civil Service Commission rules, and affected the provincial government’s operations and delivery of basic services.
After the governor’s suspension, he was replaced by then vice governor Edcel Greco Lagman.
In its ruling, the CA held that while it saw no error in the Ombudsman’s ruling that the reassignment of the department heads was tantamount to constructive dismissal, it “does not agree” with the imposition of the maximum penalty of dismissal.
“Here, respondent’s claim that Noel’s action reeked with malice and with flagrant intent to disregard the CSC rules remains unsubstantiated. Aside from the office orders issued by Noel, no other evidence was adduced to prove that Noel’s acts were motivated by corrupt interest or were done to willfully violate established rules,” the CA said.
“Neither was it established that the reassignment tarnished the image or compromised the integrity of the provincial government of Albay. In sum, there is no sufficient evidence which clearly shows that Noel committed grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Given the circumstances, Noel is only liable for simple misconduct for the reassignment of Bacao, Rebeta and Sipin,” it ruled.
In the case of Rosal’s wife Carmen, the appellate court held she was liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but in the absence of any modifying circumstances, it said it is “proper to modify the penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman of suspension from service for one year to nine months.”
