Upload
richard-baker
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
1/11
CONCERNED OFFICALS OF MWSS v VASQUEZ, PLDPPMA
240 SCRA 502
VITUG; January 25, 1995
NATURE
Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction
FACTS
- MWSS conducted bidding for two projects concerning its water distribution system in Metro
Manila. The Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipes Manufacturers Association (PLDPPMA) thenquestioned the award of the projects with the Office of the Ombudsman (Vasquez), charging an
apparent plan on the part of the MWSS to favor certain suppliers (those offering fiberglass pipesover those offering steel pipes) through the technical specifications, and urging the Ombudsman to
conduct an investigation thereon and hold in abeyance the award of the contracts. The Ombudsman
then issued the assailed order, directing the MWSS to: set aside the recommendation of an MWSS
committee to award the contact to a contractor offering fiberglass pipes, and award the subject
contract to a complying and responsive bidder
- the officials of MWSS filed the instant petition with the SC, contending that the ombudsman acted
beyond the competence of his office when he assumed jurisdiction over the complaint, when the
same is clearly among the excepted cases enumerated in the Ombudsman Act. Also, that the
Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously interfering with
the exercise of sound discretion of the MWSS
ISSUE
1. WON the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the PLDPPMA
and correspondingly issue the challenged orders
HELD1. NO
Ratio The
Reasoning On the basis of all the provisions regarding the Office of the Ombudsman, Solicitor-
General insists that the authority of the Ombudsman is sufficiently broad enough to cloth it with
sufficient power to look into the alleged irregularities in the bidding conducted by the MWSS
- The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Consti and for the grant to it of broad
investigative authority, is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able
to penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erring public
officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or dismiss
investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers. It was deemed
necessary, therefore, to create a special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public
officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions complained of are related to or arisefrom the performance of the duties of their office. The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses 'all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-
feasance that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof,
during his tenure of office.
- the powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman have generally been categorized into:
Investigatory Power; Prosecutory Power; Public Assistance Functions; Authority to Inquire and
Obtain Information; and Function to Adopt, Institute and Implement. This case concerns the
investigatory power and Public Assistance Duties of the Ombudsman
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
2/11
- the Ombudsman, in resolving the complaint, considered 3 issues: (1) WON the technical
specifications prescribed by MWSS in the projects have been so designed as to really favor
Fiberglass Pipes-Contractors/ Bidders; (2) WON the MWSS has the technical knowledge and
expertise with fiberglass pipes; and (3) WON the contractors and local manufacturers of fiberglass
pipes have the experience and qualification to undertake the projects. While the broad authority of
the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission which "xxx appears illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient" may be yielded, it is difficult to equally concede, however, that the Constitution and theLaw have intended to likewise confer upon it veto or revisory power over an exercise of judgment
or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested. It
seems that the Ombudsman, in issuing the challenged orders, has not only directly assumed
jurisdiction over, but likewise preempted the exercise of discretion by, the Board of Trustees of
MWSS. Indeed, the recommendation of the MWSS Committee to award the contract appears to be
yet pending consideration and action by the MWSS Board of Trustees.
We can only view the assailed order to be more of an undue interference in the adjudicative
responsibility of the MWSS Board of Trustees rather than a mere directive requiring the proper
observance of and compliance with the law.
Disposition Petition is granted. Order annulled and set aside.
LASTIMOSA v VASQUEZ
243 SCRA 497
MENDOZA; April 6, 1995
NATURE
Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner to set aside the orders of the Ombudsman
with respect to the two proceedings: complaint for grave misconduct, insubordination, gross
neglect of duty and maliciously refraining from prosecuting crime and a charge for indirect
contempt.
FACTS
- February 18, 1993 > Dayon, public health nurse at Cebu, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-
Visayas a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative complaint for immoral acts,
abuse of authority and grave misconduct against the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio
Ilustrisimo. After an investigation, the investigating officer found no prima facie evidence and
recommended its dismissal. But the Ombudsman, Vasquez, disapproved the recommendation and
directed that Mayor Ilustrisimo be charged with attempted rape. Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas
Mojica referred the case to Cebu Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar for the "filing of appropriate
information with the Regional Trial Court of Danao City. The case eventually went to FirstAssistant Provincial Prosecutor Gloria G. Lastimosa.
- Lastimosa conducted a PI and found that only acts of lasciviousness had been committed.With the
approval of Kintanar, she filed an information for acts of lasciviousness. As no case for attemptedrape had been filed by the Prosecutor's Office, Mojica ordered Kintanar and Lastimosa to show
cause why they should not be punished for contempt for "refusing and failing to obey the lawful
directives" of the Office of the Ombudsman.
- Mojica issued an order placing Lastimosa and Kintanar under preventive suspension for a period
of six (6) months as approved by Ombudsman Vasquez
- September 6, 1994 > Lastimosa filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the
orders directing them to file of the action (for Attempted Rape) against the Mayor; instructing
Lastimosa and Kintanar to explain in writing why they should not be punished for indirect
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
3/11
Contempt of the Office of the Ombudsman "for refusing and failing to file the appropriate
Information for Attempted Rape against the Mayor; stating that the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor to comply with the directive of the Office of the Ombudsman that a charge for attempted
rape be filed against the Mayor in recognition of the authority of said Office; approving of the
placement of Lastimosa and Kintanar under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months,
without pay; directing Assistant Regional State Prosecutor to implement preventive suspension;
and designating Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Concepcion as Acting Provincial Prosecutor ofCebu
- Petitioner claims: Office of the Ombudsman and the prosecutor's office have concurrent authority
to investigate public officers or employees and that when the former first took cognizance of the
case against Mayor Ilustrisimo, it did so to the exclusion of the latter. In any event, the Office of the
Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case against the mayor because the crime involved (rape)
was not committed in relation to a public office. Therefore the Office of the Ombudsman has no
authority to place her and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar under preventive suspension for refusing
to follow his orders and to cite them for indirect contempt for such refusal.
ISSUES
1. WON the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to call on the Provincial Prosecutor to assist it
in the prosecution of the case for attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo
2. WON Office of the Ombudsman has the power to punish for contempt and impose preventive
suspension
HELD
1. YES
Ratio When a prosecutor is deputized, he comes under the "supervision and control" of the
Ombudsman which means that he is subject to the power of the Ombudsman to direct, review,
approve, reverse or modify his (prosecutor's) decision.Petitioner cannot legally act on her own and
refuse to prepare and file the information as directed by the Ombudsman.
Reasoning
-Ombudsman is authorized to call on prosecutors for assistance. Sec 31 of the Ombudsman Act of1989 (RA6770) provides: Designation of Investigators and Prosecutors. The Ombudsman may utilize
the personnel of his office and/or designate of deputize any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the
government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and
prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him as herein provided shall be
under his supervision and control.
Obiter
- The office of the Ombudsman has the power to "investigate and prosecute on its own or on
complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency,
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." This power has
been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official
regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or
arise from, the performance of his official duty. It is enough that the act or omission was committedby a public official. Hence, the crime of rape, when committed by a public official like a municipal
mayor, is within the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute.
2. YES
- Sec 15(g) of the Ombudsman Act gives the Office of the Ombudsman the power to "punish for
contempt, in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the same procedure and with the same
penalties provided therein."
- Suspension is not a punishment or penalty for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but
only as a preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. If
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
4/11
after such investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilty of
acts warranting his removal, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. There is,
therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the
opportunity to prove his innocence.
Disposition Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Motion to Lift Order of Preventive
Suspension is DENIED
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE v OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
380 SCRA 424
de Leon, Jr., J; April 11, 2002
NATURE
Special civil Action . Certiorari and Prohibition
FACTS
- The Office of the Ombudsman received information from an informant for reward regarding the
anomalous grant of tax refunds to Distillera Limtuaco and La Tondena Distilleries. On the basis of
this information, the Ombudsman directed via a subpoena duces tecum, Atty. Mansequiao of the
legal department of the BIR to appear before him together with the complete case dockets of the
two companies.
- BIR resisted this summons on the grounds that the grant of the tax refund had already been
decided by the Sandiganbayan in People vs Larin, that the BIR had exclusive authority to grant a tax
credit, that the proper authority to review is with the Court of Tax Appeal, that there must be a
pending action before the issuance of a subpoena can be made, and that the subpoena did not
specifically described the documents sought to be produced.
- The Ombudsman denied the motion of the BIR and reiterated it instructions to the BIR to produce
the documents sought.
- The BIR filed this Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction, and temporary
restraining order with the SC
ISSUE/S
1. WON the Ombudsman could validly exercise its power to investigate only when there exist an
appropriate case
2. WON it violated due process in issuing subpoena without first giving BIR the summary of
complaint and requiring it to submit a written reply
HELD
1. No. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and
unqualified. The 1987 Constitution provides that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors
of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials
or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, includinggovernment owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. The Ombudsman Act makes it perfectly
clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance,
and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employeeduring his tenure.
2. Yes. The SC held that the procedure of immediately issuing the subpeona duces tecum was
violative of the right to due process and did no comply with Section 26, paragraph 2 of the
Ombudsman Act (RA 6770). The law clearly provides that if there is reasonable ground to
investigate further, the investigator shall first furnish the respondent public official or employee
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
5/11
with a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written answer within 72 hours from
receipt of said complaint. As noted, the BIR was never given a copy of the complaint but was
summarily ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and to produce the case dockets of the tax
refunds granted to the two companies. Clearly, the Ombudsman failed to afford BIR with the basic
due process in conducting the investigation.
DispositionPetition is granted. Ombudsman is prohibited from proceeding with the case and its orders are
annulled and set aside.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v ENOC
G.R. Nos. 145957-68
MENDOZA; January 25, 2002
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- Respondents were employed at the Office of the Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), Davao del
Sur with salaries below grade 27.
- They were charged with 11 counts of malversation through falsification, based on alleged
purchases of medicine and food assistance for cultural community members, and one count of
violation of R.A. No. 3019, 3(e), in connection with the purchases of supplies for the OSCC
without bidding/canvass.
- Respondents moved to quash the informations saying that the Ombudsman has no authority to
prosecute graft cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts. This motion was granted by
the RTC and the cases were dismissed without prejudice, however, to their refiling by the
appropriate officer.
- The Office of the Ombudsman filed the instant petition.
ISSUE
WON the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases before the regular courts.
HELD
- YES. Ombudsman has powers to prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular courts. The power to investigate and to
prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or
omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause any
illegal act or omission of any public official is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by apublic officer or employee.
- The jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with the limited authority
of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is
merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and
control and upon authority of the Ombudsman. Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and
to prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
- The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints against officers and employees of the
government and to enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
6/11
evidence warrants. To carry out this duty, the law allows him to utilize the personnel of his office
and/or designate any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special
investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those
designated or deputized to assist him work under his supervision and control. The law likewise
allows him to direct the Special prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayansjurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(4c) of RA 6770.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the order, dated October 7, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, branch 19of Digos, Davao del Sur is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case Nos. 374(97) to 385(97) are hereby
REINSTATED and the Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to try and decide the same.
FUENTES v OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
GR NO. 124295
PARDO; October 23, 2001
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Pursuant to the government's plan to construct its first fly-over in Davao City, the RP representedby the DPWH filed an expropriation case against the owners of the properties affected by the
project (namely, Tessie Amadeo, Reynaldo Lao and Rev. Alfonso Galo). The case was presided by
Judge Renato A. Fuentes.
- The govt won the expropriation case.- The properties subject of the levy as described as all scrap iron/junks found in the premises of
the DPWH. An auction was conducted wherein Alex Bacquial emerged as the highest bidder.
However, Bacquial together with Sheriff Norberto Paralisan attempted to withdraw the auctioned
properties but they were prevented from doing so because many of these were still serviceable
and were due for repair and rehabilitation. (as opposed to their classification as scrap iron/junk)
-So Alex Baquial filed an ex-parte urgent motion for the issuance of a 'break through' order toenable him to effect the withdrawal of the auctioned properties. The motion was granted by Judge
Fuentes that same day. Thus, Bacquial succeeded in hauling off the scrap iron/junk equipment in
the depot, including the repairable equipment within the DPWH depot. He hauled equipment
from the depot for five successive days until the lower court issued another order temporarily
suspending the writ of execution it earlier issued in the expropriation case and directing Bacquial
not to implement the writ. The lower court issued another order upholding the validity of the
writ of execution
- On the basis of letters from Congressman Manuel M. Garcia of the Second District of Davao Cityand Engineer Ramon A. Alejo, the Court Administrator, the SC directed Judge Renato A. Fuentes
and Sheriff Norberto Paralisan to comment on the report recommending the filing of an
administrative case against the sheriff and other persons responsible for the anomalous
implementation of the writ of execution. Also, the DPWH filed an administrative complaintagainst Sheriff Norberto Paralisan for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in
violation of Article IX, Section 36 (b) of P. D. No. 807.
- After considering the facts, the SC ordered the sheriffs dismissal. From this order,the office of theCourt Administrator was also directed to conduct an investigation on Judge Renato Fuentes and to
charge him if the result of the investigation so warrants. The Office of the Solicitor General is
likewise ordered to take appropriate action to recover the value of the serviceable or repairable
equipment which were unlawfully hauled by Alex Bacquial.
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
7/11
- Thus, Director Antonio E. Valenzuela of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao recommended thatpetitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes be charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Republic
Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e) and likewise be administratively charged before the Supreme Court with
acts unbecoming of a judge. Fuentes. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao a motion
to dismiss complaint and/or manifestation to forward all records to the Supreme Court. The
motion was dismissed hence this petition.
ISSUE
1.WON the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the exercise of hisofficial functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in the
absence of an administrative charge for the same acts before the Supreme Court.
HELD
NO. The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before
his office against petitioner judge, pursuant to his power to investigate public officers. The
Ombudsman must indorse the case to the Supreme Court, for appropriate action. Article VIII,
Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision
over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest
municipal trial court clerk. Hence, it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and
court personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any
violation of the laws of the land. No other branch of government may intrude into this power,
without running afoul of the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of
powers. No other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation service
of any other branch, not any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial order or
decision--whether final and executory or not--and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for
a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or order. That prerogative
belongs to the courts alone.
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the case and referthe complaint against petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes to the Supreme Court for appropriate
action.
LEDESMA v CA (DESIERTO)
G.R. No. 161629
YNARES-SANTIAGO; July 29, 2005
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari to reverese and set aside CA decision
FACTS- Atty Ronaldo Ledesma is the chaiman of the 1stdivision of the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). Agusto Somalio with the Fact Finding and
Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint requesting for an
investigation on alleged anomalies surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas
(TRVs) of 2 foreigners. The FIIB investigation revealed 7 other cases of TRV extensions with similar
irregularities.
- The FIIB, as nominal complainant filed with Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the
Ombudsman a formal complaint against the petitioner. Atty. Artherl Caronongan (board member)
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
8/11
and Ma. Elena Ang (exec asst) were also charged administratively. The case against the petitioner
was treated as both criminal and administative for 9 countsof violationof the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act for falsification of public documents and 9 counts of Dishonesty, grave Misconduct,
Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Neglect of Duty.
- The complaint alleged the ff illegal acts: (a) irregularily in granting TRVs beyond the prescbed
period and (b) using photocopied applications for a TRV extension wthout the applicants fixing
their signatures to validate the correctness of the information. Ladesma and Coarongan allegedlysigned the Memorandum of Transmittal to the Board of Commission (BOC) of the BID, forwarding
the applications for TRV extension of several aliens whose papers were questionable.
- Graft Investigation Officer Marlyn Reyes resolved the administrative cases in a resolution
recommending that Ledesma be suspended from the service for 1 year for Conduct Prejudicial to
the Interest of the Service, that Caronongan be dismissed for being moot and academic and the case
against Ang be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
- Asst Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera reviewed the joint resolution which was approved by
Ombudsman Desierto.
- Pending the approval by Desierto, he approved the resolution of Graft Investigation Officer
Marilou Ancheta-Mejica dismissing criminal charges for insufficiency of evidence.
- Petitioner filed an MFR in the administrative case alleging that the BOC which reviewed the
applications for extension approved theTRVs in question thereby effectively declared the
applicationd regular and in order and waived any infurmity thereon.
- Graft Officer Reyes recommended the denial of the MFR which was approved by Desierto but
reduced the suspension from 1yr to 9mos without pay.
- Petitionerfiled a petition for review with the CA with a preliminary prohobitory mandatory
injunction and/or temporary restraining order to enjoin public respondents from the
implementation of the order of suspension. CA issued the TRO.
- CA affirmed the suspension but reduced it to 6mos and 1day without pay. MFR was denied.
ISSUE/S
1. WON CA manifestly overlooked relevant facts which would have justified a conclusion in favor of
the petitioner2. WON CA erred in finding that the ombudsman is not merely advisory on the Bureau of
Immigration
3. WON CA failed to consider that the Ombudsmand's resolution finding Ledesma administratively
liable constitutes an indirect encroachment intot he power of the Bureau of Immigration over
immigration matters
HELD
1. NO
Reasoning Petitioner undermines his position in the BID and his role in the processing of the
subject applications. The BSI reviews the applications and when it finds them in order, executes a
Memorandum of Tranmittal to the BOC certifying to the regularity of the application.
All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinated. He cannot feign goodfaith when the irregularities of the TRV extention application were patently clear on its face. The
contention that the BOC's approval of the defective application for TRV extension cured any
infirmaties absolved petitioner's administrative lapse.
The main thrust of the case is to determine whether petitioner committedany misconduct,
nonfeasance, misfeasance or mal feasance in the performance of his duties.
2and3. NO
Ratio Thecreation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution. The
Ombudsman and his deputies are mandated to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
9/11
manner against officers or employeed of the Government. Foremost among its powers is the
authority to investigate and prosecute public officers and employees.
Reasoning Ledesma argues that to uphold CA's ruling expands authority granted by the
constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations as in the present case is
settled.Section 19 of RA 6770 providesa that the Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating,
but not limited to acts or omissions which: (a) Are contrary to law or regulation; (b) Areunreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory; (c) Are inconsistent with the general course of
an agencys functions, though in accordance with law; (d) Proceed from a mistake of law or anarbitrary ascertainment of facts; (e) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper
purpose; or (f) Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.
Under Section 13, subparagraph (3), of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman can
only recommend the removal of the public official or employee found to be at fault, to the publicofficial concerned. The Solicitor General and the Office of the Ombudsman argue that the word
recommend must be taken in conjunction with the phrase and ensure compliance therewithand
not its literal meaning.
The Constitutional Commission left to Congress to empower the Ombudsman with prosecutorial
functions which it did when RA 6770 was enacted.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
ESTARIJA v RANADA
492 SCRA 652
QUISUMBING; Jun 26, 2006
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTSCaptain Edgardo V. Estarija, Harbor Master of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), was found
guilty by the Ombudsman of dishonesty and grave misconduct for having been demanding monies
for the approval and issuance of berthing permits and monthly contribution from the Davao Pilots
Association, Inc. (DPAI). He was dismissed from the service.
ISSUES
1.WON there is substantial evidence to hold petitioner liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct2.WON the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove, suspend, demote, fine or censure erring
officials is unconstitutional since the under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsmansadministrative authority is merely recommendatory
HELD1. YES.
Reasoning:
a. Estarija was caught red-handed in an entrapment operation. When Estarija went to the office of
Adrian Cagata to pick up the money, his doing so was indicative of his willingness to commit the
crime.
b. In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only
substantial evidence, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/161629.htm#_ftn20http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/161629.htm#_ftn20http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/161629.htm#_ftn208/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
10/11
2. NO.
Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the
Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act No. 6770, Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with
the power to prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees to make him a more
active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office. Moreover, the
legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his ownactions.
Reasoning
a. Jurisprudence
- In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, we held that Rep. Act No. 6770 is consistent with the intent of the
framers of the 1987 Constitution. They gave Congress the discretion to give the Ombudsman
powers that are not merely persuasive in character. Thus, in addition to the power of the
Ombudsman to prosecute and conduct investigations, the lawmakers intended to provide the
Ombudsman with the power to punish for contempt and preventively suspend any officer under his
authority pending an investigation when the case so warrants. He was likewise given disciplinary
authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies except members of Congress and the Judiciary.
b. intent of the framers of the Constitution
- Based on the record of the Constitutional Commission, they clarified that the powers of the
Ombudsman are not exclusive. They are not foreclosing the possibility that in the future, the
Assembly may have to give additional powers to the Ombudsman.
3. The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13, Article XI of the
1987 Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the powers of the
Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically Section 15, par. 3, the
lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and employees, except
members of Congress, and the Judiciary.
DISPOSITION The petition is DENIED.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS MASING
Puno
January 22, 2008
The principal and office clert of Davao City Integrated Special School were administratively charged
before the OMB for Mindanao for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit authorized
fees and to account for public funds.
Issue: WON the OMB may directly discipline public school teachers and employees.
Held: Yes.
The authority of the OMB to act on complaints filed against public officers and employees is explicit
in Article XI, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, Article XI, section 13, which delineates the
powers, functions and duties of the OMB and such enumeration is non-exclusive. Then RA 6770
gave OMB such other powers that it may need to efficiently perform the task given by the Consti.
In fine, the manifest intent of the lawmakers was to bestow on the Office of the OMB full
administrative disciplinary authority in accord with the constitutional deliberations. In 1973, it was
limited only in cases of failure of justice. In 1987, it was intended to play a more active role in the
8/3/2019 POLI 2 Ombudsman Cases
11/11
enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public
officers and employees. Not just a passive one but an activist watchman. In Office of the OMB vs
Laja, it was emphasized that the OMBs order to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, orprosecute an officer or employee is not merely advisory or recommendatory but is actually
mandatory. Implementation of the order imposing the penalty is, however to coursed through the
proper officer.
The authority of the OMB to conduct administrative investigations is beyond cavil. As the principal
and primary complaints and action center against erring public officers and employees, it is
mandated by no less than Section 13(1), Article XI of the Constitution. In conjunction therewith,
Section 19 of RA 6770 grants to the OMB the authority to act on all administrative complaints.
Fabella case, the procedure set there was for administrative investigations conducted by DECS. This
is not also applicable because they were filed with violations of civil service laws by the DECS
secretary unlike in the present case where they were charged with violations of RA 6713 or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees