G.R. No. 142261. June 29, 2000. * GOVERNOR MANUEL M. LAPID, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, FACT-FINDING INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, respondents.

 Ombudsman; Statutory Construction; “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”—the express mention of the things included excludes those that are not included; All other decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman which impose penalties that are not enumerated in Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A. 6770) are not final, unappealable and immediately executory.—It is clear from the above provisions that the punishment imposed upon petitioner, i.e. suspension without pay for one month, is not among those listed as final and unappealable, hence, immediately executory. Section 27 states that all provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory; and that any order, directive or decision of the said Office imposing the penalty of censure or reprimand or suspension of not more than one month’s salary is final and unappealable.

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the Supreme Court.

Motions for Reconsideration filed by the National Bureau of Investigation and the Department of the Interior and Local Government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor-General, and the Office of the Ombudsman of our 5 April 2000 Resolution. 1 In this resolution, we ordered the immediate reinstatement of petitioner Manuel Lapid to the position of Governor of Pampanga as the respondents failed to establish the existence of a law mandating the immediate execution of a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case where the penalty imposed is suspension for one year.

On the basis of an unsigned letter dated July 20, 1998, allegedly originating from the “Mga Mamamayan ng Lalawigan ng Pampanga,” addressed to the National Bureau of Investigation, the latter initiated an “open probe” on the alleged illegal quarrying in Pampanga & exaction of exorbitant fees purportedly perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals with the connivance of highranking government officials. The NBI Report was endorsed to the respondent Ombudsman and was docketed as OMB-1-98-2067.

alleged “Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service” for allegedly “having conspired between and among themselves in demanding and collecting from various quarrying operators in Pampanga a control fee, control slip, or monitoring fee of P120.00 per truckload of sand, gravel, or other quarry material, without a duly enacted provincial ordinance authorizing the collection thereof and without issuing receipts for its collection. They were also accused of giving unwarranted benefits to Nestor Tadeo, Rodrigo “Rudy” 

 Ombudsman - suspend them for misconduct

CA - denied petition for relief

Motion for Leave to File Supplement to the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus 1 1 and the Supplement to the Petition 1 2 itself were filed in view of the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying the petitioner’s prayer for preliminary injunction. In addition to the arguments raised in the main petition, the petitioner likewise raised in issue the apparent prejudgment of the case on the merits by the Court of Appeals in its resolution denying the prayer for preliminary injunction.

Office of the Ombudsman is empowered to “(p)romulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law,” suffice it to note that the Ombudsman rules of procedure, Administrative Order No. 07, mandate that decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman where the penalty imposed is other than public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month salary or fine equivalent to one month salary are still appealable and hence, not final and executory. Under these rules, which were admittedly promulgated by virtue of the rule-making power of the Office of the Ombudsman, the decision imposing a penalty of one year suspension without pay on petitioner Lapid is not immediately executory. WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Ombudsman are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.