CA reverses dismissal of MIAA GM Chiong

The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed the dismissal of Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) general manager Cesar Chiong and assistant general manager (AGM) Irene Montalbo over the reassignment of almost 300 MIAA employees.

In a 13-page decision promulgated in March, the Thirteenth Division reversed and set aside the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman that found them guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority, Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for lack of merit.

“Granting that the OMB 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,” the CA said.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by “anonymous MIAA officials” over the reassignment of 285 employees in less than a year upon Chiong’s assumption as acting General Manager and Member of the Board of Directors of MIAA.

The charge also involved Montalbo’s designation as acting AGM despite her supposed unsatisfactory rating in 2020.

In May 2023, the two were placed under preventive suspension due to the complaint. Months later, or in August 2023, the Ombudsman ordered their dismissal.

This prompted Chiong and Montalbo to file the petition before the CA, arguing that the Ombudsman decision was issued with grave abuse of discretion, grave error of facts and laws, serious irregularities, and despite the total lack of substantial evidence.

For its part, the Ombudsman argued that it exercises concurrent administrative jurisdiction over Chiong and Montalbo.

In granting the petition, the CA cited a ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) that found that a definitive ruling by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on the validity of a reassignment is a prerequisite for the finding of the Ombudsman of any harassment or oppression.

Without a CSC ruling, the SC found that the Ombudsman’s finding would suffer from prematurity.

“Perusal of the records shows that there was neither a definitive ruling from the CSC that the reassignment was invalid, nor at least a referral of the case to the CSC for such prior determination,” the CA said.

According to the CA, an administrative decision should have “something to support itself” such as substantial evidence or enough relevant evidence that is adequate enough for a reasonable mind to justify a conclusion or support a decision.

The court said that the Ombudsman had merely made a general statement that the reassignment was done with clear intent to violate the law.

“Nevertheless, this finding shall in no way preempt or prejudice the proceedings to be filed with or referred to the CSC, should there be any,” the CA said. —KBK, GMA Integrated News