Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
vs.
Vasquez
January
25,
1995
Vitug,
J.
Topic
and
Provisions
involved:
Ombudsmans
Jurisdiction
over
administrative
agencies
(MWSS)
in
the
lawful
exercise
of
the
agencys
judgment
or
discretion
Doctrine
While
the
board
authority
of
the
Ombudsman
to
investigate
any
act
or
omission
which
appears
illegal,
unjust,
improper
or
inefficient
may
be
yielded,
it
is
difficult
to
equally
concede,
however,
that
the
constitution
and
the
Ombudsman
Act
have
intended
to
likewise
confer
upon
it
veto
or
revisory
power
over
an
exercise
of
judgment
or
discretion
by
any
agency
or
officer
upon
whom
that
judgment
or
discretion
is
lawfully
vested.
Facts
MWSS
(Board
of
Trustees
of
Metropolitan
Waterworks
and
Sewerage
System)
launched
the
Angat
Water
Supply
Optimization
Project
(AWSOP).
In
order
to
finance
the
Distribution
System
Phase
of
the
Project,
MWSS
publicized
the
bidding
for
two
projects
called
APM-01
and
APM-02
(involving
the
supply
of
labor,
materials
and
equipment,
and
installment
of
new
water
mains
respectively).
Out
of
all
those
who
gave
their
offers,
only
11
contractors
pre-qualified
for
the
bidding
on
Mar.
31
1992.
Eventually,
For
project
APM-01:
the
three
lowest
bidders
were:
o DYWIDAG/TITAN/WILPER/PLDPPMA/GREEN
JADE
(Joint
Venture/lowest
bid)
o FF
Cruz
&
Co.
(Second
lowest)
proposed
to
use
fiber
glass
pipes
o JV
Angeles
Const.
Corp/JA
devt
corp.
For
project
APM-02:
the
three
lowest
bidders
were:
o Eng.
Equipment
Inc
(lowest
bid)
proposed
to
use
fiber
glass
pipes
o FF
Cruz
&
co.
Inc
(second)
proposed
to
use
fiber
glass
pipes
o JV
Angeles
Const.
Corp/JA
devt
corp.
After
a
meeting
held
by
MWSS,
they
decided
that
for
APM-01,
even
though
FF
Cruz
was
only
the
second
lowest
bidder,
it
complied
with
all
the
requirements
and
granted
it
the
bid.
Joint
Venture,
on
the
other
hand,
failed
certain
requirements.
PLDPPMA
(Phil.
large
diameter
pressure
pipes
manufacturers
association)
filed
a
letter
complaint
with
the
Ombudsman
protesting
the
public
bidding
claiming
that
MWSS
was
clearly
and
arbitrarily
favoring
suppliers
of
fiber
glass
pipes.
The
ombudsman
directed
MWSS
to
hold
in
abeyance
their
awarding
of
the
subject
contract.
After
a
investigation
by
the
fact
finding
and
intelligence
bureau
of
the
ombudsman,
the
ombudsman
issued
the
challenged
order
which
stated
that:
o MWSS
must
set
aside
its
awarding
of
the
bid
to
FF
Cruz
Inc
and
award
the
subject
contract
to
the
lowest
bidder
pursuant
to
PD
1594
(guidelines
for
government
infrastructure
contracts).
MWSS
appealed.
Issues:
WON
the
ombudsman
has
jurisdiction
to
take
cognizance
of
PLDPPMAs
complaint
and
issue
its
challenged
orders
reversing
MWSS
recommendations?
NO!
Held
MWSS
won.
Ombudsmans
orders
are
annulled.
Ratio
Ombudsmans
order
to
MWSS
to
set
aside
its
recommendation
of
the
Contract
No.
APM-01
to
the
lowest
COMPLYING
bidder
is
invalid
because
it
is
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.
The
Ombudsman
has
broad
and
plenary
powers
granted
to
it
by
the
Constitution
and
RA
6770
such
as
its
investigatory
power
found
in:
o Art.
XI
Sec.
13
of
the
Constitution:
Investigate
on
its
own,
or
on
complaint
by
any
person,
any
act
or
omission
of
any
public
official,
employee,
office
or
agency,
when
such
act
or
omission
appears
to
e
illegal,
unjust,
improper
or
inefficient
o RA
6770
Sec.
26:
The
office
of
the
ombudsman
shall
inquire
into
acts
or
omissions
of
a
public
officer,
employee,
office
or
agency
which
from
the
reports
or
complaints
it
has
received,
the
ombudsman
or
his
deputies
consider
to
be:
a)
contrary
to
law
or
regulation
b)
unreasonable,
unfair,
oppressive,
irregular
d)
based
on
improper
motives
or
corrupt
considerations.
o Delose
v.
Domingo:
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
sec.
13
during
his
tenure
of
office
However,
the
ombudsmans
authority
and
jurisdiction
are
not
unlimited.
RA
6770
sec.
20
provides
an
exception:
o The
office
of
the
ombudsman
may
not
conduct
the
necessary
investigation
of
any
administrative
act
or
omission
complained
of
if
it
believes
that:
1)
the
complainant
has
an
adequate
remedy
in
another
judicial
or
quasi-judicial
body
2)
the
complaint
pertains
to
a
matter
outside
the
jurisdiction
of
the
office
of
the
ombudsman
In
order
to
make
the
assailed
orders,
the
ombudsman
make
factual
findings
and
decisions
on
technical
matters
that
must
be
left
to
the
proper
administrative
agencies.
o The
office
of
the
ombudsman
resolved
three
issues
involving
1)
WON
the
technical
specifications
were
designed
to
favor
Fiberglass
Pipers
Bidders
2)
WON
the
MWSS
has
the
technical
knowledge
and
expertise
with
fiber
glass
pipes
3)
WON
the
contractors
of
fiberglass
pipes
have
the
experience
and
qualifications
to
undertake
the
two
projects
MWSS
is
a
government
owned
and
controlled
corporation
created
by
law
that
is
in
charge
of
the
construction,
maintenance
and
operation
of
waterwork
system
to
insure
an
uninterrupted
and
adequate
supply
and
distribution
of
potable
water.
It
is
the
agency
that
should
be
in
the
best
position
to
evaluate
the
feasibility
of
the
projections
of
the
bidders
and
to
decide
which
bid
is
compatible
with
its
development
plans.
In
Razon
v.
PPA:
Neither
this
court
nor
congress,
and
now
perhaps
the
ombudsman,
could
be
expected
to
have
the
time
and
technical
expertise
to
look
into
matters
of
this
nature.
MWSS,
by
the
very
nature
of
its
functions,
however,
must
obviously
enjoy
an
advantage
over
other
agencies
on
the
subject
at
hand.
Ysmael
vs.
Deputy
Executive
Secretary:
Courts
will
not
interfere
in
matters
which
are
addressed
to
the
sound
discretion
of
government
agencies
entrusted
with
the
regulation
of
activities
coming
under
the
especial
technical
knowledge
and
training
of
such
agencies.
Lastimosa
v.
Vasquez
April
6,
1995
Mendoza
Topic:
The
Ombudsman
Provision:
31
of
the
Ombudsman
Act
of
1989
(R.A.
No.
6770):
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.
(Emphasis
added)
Doctrine:
When
a
prosecutor
is
deputized
by
the
ombudsman,
he
becomes
under
the
supervision
and
control
of
the
latter.
Facts:
- On
February
18,
1993
Jessica
Villacarlos
Dayon,
public
health
nurse
of
Santa
Fe,
Cebu,
filed
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.
Intially,
the
deputy
ombudsman
found
no
prima
facie
evidence.
After
review,
Omb.
Vasquez
reversed
and
directed
that
the
mayor
be
charged
with
a
criminal
case
in
the
RTC.
- The
case
was
referred
to
provincial
prosecutor
Lastimosa.
She
conducted
her
own
preliminary
investigation
and
found
that
only
acts
of
lasciviousness
had
been
committed.
She
filed
a
case
for
acts
of
lasciviousness
with
the
MCTC.
- As
no
case
for
attempted
rape
had
been
filed
by
the
Prosecutor's
Office,
Deputy
Ombudsman
Mojica
ordered
on
July
27,
1994
Provincial
Prosecutor
Kintanar
and
petitioner
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.
- Petitioner
contends,
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.
For
this
reason
it
is
argued
that
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.
Yes!
2. WON
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
has
the
power
to
suspend
the
prosecutor.
Yes!
Ratio:
Issue
1:
- 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
does
not
matter
that
the
Office
of
the
Provincial
Prosecutor
had
already
conducted
the
preliminary
investigation
and
all
that
remained
to
be
done
was
for
the
Office
of
the
Provincial
Prosecutor
to
file
the
corresponding
case
in
court.
Even
if
the
preliminary
investigation
had
been
given
over
to
the
Provincial
Prosecutor
to
conduct,
his
determination
of
the
nature
of
the
offense
to
be
charged
would
still
be
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman.
This
is
because
under
31
of
the
Ombudsman's
Act,
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.
Issue
2:
- 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."
There
is
no
merit
in
the
argument
that
petitioner
and
Provincial
Prosecutor
Kintanar
cannot
be
held
liable
for
contempt
because
their
refusal
arose
out
of
an
administrative,
rather
than
judicial,
proceeding
before
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman.
- Whether
petitioner's
refusal
to
follow
the
Ombudsman's
orders
constitutes
a
defiance,
disobedience
or
resistance
of
a
lawful
process,
order
or
command
of
the
Ombudsman
thus
making
her
liable
for
indirect
contempt
under
Rule
71,
3
of
the
Rules
of
Court
is
for
respondents
to
determine
after
appropriate
hearing.
Concurring
Opinion,
Regalado:
The
longer
period
of
six
(6)
months
for
preventive
suspension
under
Republic
Act
No.
6770
was
evidently
induced
by
a
desire
to
more
meaningfully
emphasize
and
implement
the
authority
of
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
over
public
officials
and
employees
in
order
to
serve
as
a
deterrent
against
illegal,
unjust,
improper
and
inefficient
conduct
on
their
part.
As
the
agency
mandated
by
the
Constitution
to
undertake
such
task,
it
was
invested
with
the
corresponding
authority
to
enable
it
to
perform
its
mission.
Significantly,
it
is
the
only
body
authorized
to
investigate
even
officials
removable
by
impeachment.
The
Court
in
Buenaseda:
The
purpose
of
RA
No.
6770
is
to
give
the
Ombudsman
such
powers
as
he
may
need
to
perform
efficiently
the
task
committed
to
him
by
the
Constitution.
Such
being
the
case,
said
statute,
particularly
its
provisions
dealing
with
procedure,
should
be
given
such
interpretation
that
will
effectuate
the
purposes
and
objective
of
the
Constitution.
Any
interpretation
that
will
hamper
the
work
of
the
Ombudsman
should
be
avoided.
A
statute
granting
powers
to
an
agency
created
by
the
Constitution
should
be
liberally
construed
for
the
advancement
of
the
purposes
and
objectives
for
Department
of
which
it
was
created.
refunds
granted
to
Limtuaco
and
La
Tondea.
Moreover,
the
BIR
has
exclusive
authority
to
grant
tax
credits
so
if
the
Ombudsman
wanted
to
contest
the
BIRs
findings,
then
it
should
have
appealed
to
the
Court
of
Tax
Appeals.
Issues:
1)
WON
the
Ombudsman
may
exercise
its
investigatory
power
only
over
an
appropriate
pending
case
2)
WON
the
Ombudsman
has
the
jurisdiction
to
disturb
the
findings
of
the
BIR
regarding
the
granting
of
tax
refunds
Held:
1)
NO.
2)
YES.
BUT,
BIRs
petition
is
granted
because
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
failed
to
follow
procedural
requirements.
Ombudsman
ordered
to
desist
from
further
investigation.
Ratio:
1)
Art.
XI,
Sec.
12
of
the
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,
including
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations,
and
shall,
in
appropriate
case,
notify
the
complainants
of
the
action
taken
and
the
result
thereof.
There
is
no
requirement
of
a
pending
action
before
the
Ombudsman
could
wield
its
investigative
power.
The
Ombudsman
can
opt
to
investigate
motu
propio
or
upon
a
complaint
filed
in
any
form
or
manner,
whether
verbal
or
written,
unsigned
or
unverified.
Therefore,
as
in
this
case,
an
anonymous
letter
from
an
informer
shall
suffice
because
the
Constitution
does
not
require
a
particular
form.
Those
subject
of
the
Ombudsmans
jurisdiction
are
public
officials
who
may
use
their
positions
or
influence
to
quash
or
delay
investigations,
while
the
complainants
are
often
the
poor.
The
Constitution
provides
that
no
form
is
required,
in
order
to
encourage
the
public
to
file
these
complaints.
In
an
appropriate
case
was
clarified
in
Almonte
v.
Vasquez
as
any
case
concerning
an
official
act
or
omission
which
is
alleged
to
be
illegal,
unjust,
improper,
or
inefficient.
2)
The
power
to
investigate
and
to
prosecute
which
was
granted
by
law
to
the
Ombudsman
is
plenary
and
unqualified.
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
employee
xxx
during
his
tenure
of
office.
The
mere
finality
of
the
BIRs
ruling
on
the
subject
of
tax
refund
cases
is
not
a
legal
impediment
to
the
exercise
of
respondents
investigative
authority
under
the
Constitution
and
its
Charter
(RA
6770).
While
it
is
true
that
the
determination
of
WON
to
grant
a
tax
refund
falls
within
the
exclusive
expertise
of
the
BIR,
when
there
is
even
just
a
suspicion
impropriety
in
the
grant
of
the
same,
the
Ombudsman
could
rightfully
decided
whether
such
was
done
in
accordance
with
law
and
identify
those
responsible
for
any
anomalies.
As
a
result,
the
Ombudsman
cannot
be
accused
of
unlawfully
interfering
with
the
BIRs
discretion.
Moreover,
the
Ombudsman
was
not
investigating
as
an
appellate
body
having
power
of
review,
but
rather
as
an
investigative
agency
which
is
the
protector
of
the
people
with
the
power
to
look
into
any
case
concerning
an
official
act
or
omission
which
is
alleged
to
be
illegal,
unjust,
improper,
or
inefficient.
The
clause
any
[illegal]
act
or
omission
of
any
public
official
is
broad
enough
to
embrace
any
crime
committed
by
a
public
official.
The
law
does
not
qualify
the
nature
of
the
illegal
act
or
omission
of
the
public
official
or
employee
that
the
Ombudsman
may
investigate.
It
does
not
require
that
the
act
or
omission
be
related
to
or
be
connected
with
or
arise
from
the
performance
of
official
duty.
Procedural
matters:
With
regard
to
the
BIRs
contention
of
unlawful
divulgence
of
trade
secrets,
the
SC
held
that
generally
a
governmental
privilege
against
disclosure
is
recognized
with
respect
to
state
secrets
bearing
on
military,
diplomatic
and
similar
matters.
The
grants
in
this
case
did
not
involve
any
of
the
said
matters.
However,
the
SC
held
that
the
Ombudsman
circumvented
the
procedure
required
by
Sec.
26
of
RA
6770
which
states
that
if
the
Ombudsman
finds
reasonable
ground
to
investigate
further,
it
shall
first
furnish
the
respondent
public
officer
or
employee
with
a
summary
of
the
complaint
and
require
him
to
submit
a
written
answer
within
seventy-two
hours
from
receipt
hereof.
If
the
answer
is
found
satisfactory,
it
shall
dismiss
the
case.
The
BIR
officials
concerned
were
never
furnished
with
a
summary
of
the
complaint
nor
given
time
to
submit
counter-affidavits
and
controverting
evidence.
Instead,
they
were
immediately
ordered
to
appear
before
the
Ombudsman
and
to
produce
the
case
dockets
of
the
tax
refunds
granted
to
Limtuaco
and
La
Tondea.
WHEREFORE,
the
order,
dated
October
7,
2000,
of
the
Regional
Trial
Court,
branch
19
of
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.
SO
ORDERED.
Issue:
Whether
the
Ombudsman
may
conduct
an
investigation
of
acts
of
a
judge
in
the
exercise
of
his
official
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:
The
Ombudsman
cannot
investigate
the
acts
of
the
judge
Ratio:
Republic
Act
No.
6770,
otherwise
known
as
the
Ombudsman
Act
of
1989,
provides:
Section
21.
Officials
Subject
To
Disciplinary
Authority,
Exceptions.-
The
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
shall
have
disciplinary
authority
over
all
elective
and
appointive
officials
of
the
Government
and
its
subdivisions,
instrumentalities
and
agencies,
including
members
of
the
Cabinet,
local
government,
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations
and
their
subsidiaries,
except
over
officials
who
may
be
removed
only
by
impeachment
or
over
Members
of
Congress,
and
the
Judiciary.
Thus,
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
Petitioners
questioned
order
directing
the
attachment
of
government
property
and
issuing
a
writ
of
execution
were
done
in
relation
to
his
office,
well
within
his
official
functions.
The
order
may
be
erroneous
or
void
for
lack
or
excess
of
jurisdiction.
However,
whether
or
not
such
order
of
execution
was
valid
under
the
given
circumstances,
must
be
inquired
into
in
the
course
of
the
judicial
action
only
by
the
Supreme
Court
that
is
tasked
to
supervise
the
courts.
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.
Ledesma
v.
CA
July
29,
2005
Ynares-Santiago,
J.:
Doctrine:
RA
6770
intended
to
provide
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
with
sufficient
muscle
to
ensure
that
it
can
effectively
carry
out
its
mandate
as
protector
of
the
people
against
inept
and
corrupt
government
officers
and
employees.
It
was
given
disciplinary
authority
over
all
elective
and
appointive
officials
of
the
government
and
its
subdivisions,
instrumentalities
and
agencies
(with
the
exception
of
impeachable
officers).
Relevant
Law:
1987
Constitution,
Article
XI,
Section
13
(1)
The
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
shall
have
the
following
powers,
functions
and
duties:
(1) Investigate
on
its
own,
or
on
complaint
by
any
person,
any
act
or
omission
of
any
public
official,
employee,
office
or
agency,
when
such
act
or
omission
appears
to
be
illegal,
unjust,
improper,
or
inefficient.
(2)
(3) Direct
the
officer
concerned
to
take
appropriate
action
against
a
public
official
or
employee
at
fault
and
recommend
his
removal,
suspension,
demotion,
fine,
censure,
or
prosecution
and
ensure
compliance
therewith.
Facts:
Petitioner
Atty.
Ledesma
is
the
Chairman
of
the
First
Division
of
the
Board
of
Special
Inquiry
(BSI)
of
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
and
Deportation
(BID).
Augusto
Somalio
filed
a
complaint
with
the
Ombudsman
alleging
anomalies
surrounding
the
extension
of
the
Temporary
Resident
Visas
of
2
foreign
nationals.
The
investigation
revealed
7
other
similar
cases.
As
a
result
of
the
investigation,
a
complaint
was
filed
before
the
Administrative
Adjudication
Bureau
of
the
Ombudsman.
The
complaint
was
both
an
administrative
and
criminal
complaint
for
9
counts
of
dishonesty,
grave
misconduct,
falsification
of
public
documents
and
gross
neglect
of
duty,
and
for
9
counts
of
violation
of
the
Anti-Graft
and
Corrupt
Practices
Act,
respectively.
The
Graft
Investigation
Officer
Marlyn
Reyes
resolved
the
administrative
cases
against
petitioner.
(2
people
were
also
charged,
Atty.
Caronongan
and
Elena
Ang,
but
the
complaints
against
them
were
dismissed).
The
Ombudsman
affirmed
the
resolution
of
the
Graft
Investigation
Officer
but
lowered
the
penalty
to
9
months
suspension
without
pay
from
the
1
year
suspension.
The
CA
affirmed
with
modification,
further
reducing
the
penalty
to
6
months
and
1
day.
Issue
/
Held:
WON
the
decision
or
order
that
emanates
from
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
has
any
binding
power.
YES.
Petitioner
lost
the
case.
The
petitioner
argues
that
the
Ombudsmans
actions
are
only
advisory
in
nature
rather
than
one
having
any
binding
effect.
Ratio:
The
creation
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
manner
against
officers
or
employees
of
the
Government.
The
proper
interpretation
of
the
Constitution
is
that
the
Ombudsman
has
the
authority
to
determine
the
administrative
liability
of
a
public
official
or
employee
at
fault,
and
direct
and
compel
the
head
of
the
office
or
agency
concerned
to
implement
the
penalty
imposed.
The
word
recommend
must
be
take
in
conjunction
with
the
phrase
and
ensure
compliance
therewith.
Moreover,
RA
6770,
Section
15
(3),
states:
3. Direct
the
officer
concerned
to
take
the
appropriate
action
against
a
public
officer
or
employee
at
fault
Provided,
that
the
refusal
by
any
officer
without
just
cause
to
comply
with
an
order
of
the
Ombudsman
to
remove,
suspend,
demote,
fine,
censure,
or
prosecute
an
officer
or
employee
shall
be
a
ground
for
disciplinary
action
against
said
officer.
The
foregoing
interpretation
is
consistent
with
the
wisdom
and
spirit
behind
the
creation
of
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
as
can
be
gleaned
from
the
records
of
the
deliberations
of
the
Constitutional
Commission.
As
also
held
in
Uy
vs.
Sandiganbayan:
The
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
is
armed
with
the
power
to
prosecute
erring
public
officers
and
employees,
giving
him
an
active
role
in
the
enforcement
of
laws
on
anti-graft
and
corrupt
practices
and
such
other
offenses
that
may
be
committed
by
such
officers
and
employees.
WHEREFORE,
the
instant
petition
is
DENIED.
ESTARIJA
v
RANADA
Jun
26,
2006
Quisumbing,
J.
Topic:
Extent
of
Authority
of
the
Ombudsman
Provisions
Involved
Sec
13,
Art
XI,
1987
Constitution
The
office
of
the
Ombudsman
shall
have
the
ff
powers,
functions,
and
duties:
(3)
Direct
the
officer
concerned
to
take
appropriate
action
against
a
public
official
or
employee
at
fault,
and
recommend
his
removal,
suspension,
demotion,
fine,
censure,
or
prosecution,
and
ensure
compliance
therewith
Sec
15
Par
3,
RA
6770
The
office
of
the
Ombudsman
shall
have
the
ff
powers,
functions,
and
duties:
(3)
Direct
the
officer
concerned
to
take
appropriate
action
against
a
public
officer
or
employee
at
fault
or
who
neglect
to
perform
an
act
or
discharge
a
duty
required
by
law,
and
recommend
his
removal,
suspension,
demotion,
fine,
censure,
or
prosecution,
and
ensure
compliance
therewith;
or
enforce
its
disciplinary
authority
as
provided
in
Section
21
of
this
Act:
provided,
that
the
refusal
by
any
officer
without
just
cause
to
comply
with
an
order
of
the
Ombudsman
to
remove,
suspend,
demote,
fine,
censure,
or
prosecute
an
officer
or
employee
who
is
at
fault
or
who
neglects
to
perform
an
act
or
discharge
a
duty
required
by
law
shall
be
a
ground
for
disciplinary
action
against
said
officer;
Doctrine
The
powers
of
the
Ombudsman
are
not
merely
recommendatory.
His
office
was
given
teeth
to
render
this
constitutional
body
not
merely
functional
but
also
effective.
Thus,
under
RA
6770
and
the
Constitution,
the
Ombudsman
has
the
power
to
directly
remove
from
government
service
an
erring
public
official
other
than
a
member
of
Congress
and
the
Judiciary.
Facts
Respondent,
a
member
of
the
Davao
Pilots
Association
(DPAI)
and
Davao
Tugboat
and
Allied
Services
filed
an
administrative
complaint
for
Gross
Misconduct
before
the
Ombudsman
against
petitioner,
Harbor
Master
of
the
Philippine
Ports
Authority,
Port
of
Davao.
Petitioner
was
alleged
to
have
been
demanding
monies
for
the
approval
and
issuance
of
berthing
permits
and
a
monthly
contribution
form
the
DPAI.
Ombudsman
preventively
suspended
him
and
eventually
found
him
guilty
of
dishonesty
and
grave
misconduct.
Petitioner
filed
an
MR
with
the
Ombudsman
assailing
the
constitutionality
of
his
dismissal
since
the
Ombudsman
did
not
have
the
direct
power
to
remove
officials.
MR
was
denied.
Petitioner
raised
the
issue
of
constitutionality
again
with
the
CA,
but
was
also
denied
by
the
latter.
Issue
WON
it
is
within
the
power
of
the
Ombudsman
to
directly
remove,
suspend,
demote,
fine,
or
censure
erring
officials
Held
YES.
Petition
denied.
Ratio
Art
XI
Sec
13
of
the
1987
Constitution
enumerates
the
powers
of
the
Ombudsman
while
RA
6770
provides
for
the
functional
and
structural
organization
of
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman.
In
passing
RA
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
own
actions.
In
Ledesma
v
CA,
it
was
held
that
the
framers
of
the
1987
Constitution
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,
except
for
members
of
Congress
and
Judiciary.
Ombudsman
v
Masing
2008
Puno,
C.J.
DOCTRINE:
The
Ombudsmans
order
to
remove,
censure
or
prosecute
an
officer
or
ee
is
not
merely
advisory
by
mandatory.
The
Ombudsman
has
full
administrative
and
disciplinary
authority
FACTS:
Masing
was
former
principal
of
the
Davao
City
Integrated
Special
School
o Administratively
charged
in
the
office
of
the
Ombudsman
for
allegedly
collecting
unauthorized
fees
Violation
of
code
of
conduct
and
ethical
standards
for
public
officials
and
EEs
(RA6713)
o Complaint
filed
by
parents
of
students
in
the
school
Masing
moved
for
dismissal,
alleging
that
Ombudsman
had
no
jurisdiction
denied
o Argued
that
it
should
be
filed
with
DECS,
who
would
organize
a
committee
to
hear
the
dispute
in
accordance
with
RA
4760
(magna
carta
for
pub
school
teachers)
Ombudsman
found
them
guilty
and
denied
their
motion
for
recon
brought
the
case
to
the
CA
(reversed)
o CA
ordered
Masing
to
be
reinstated
with
backwages
Ombudsman
filed
omnibus
motion
to
intervene
with
CA,
CA
denied
because
of
2
grounds:
o Intervention
is
improper
QJ
whose
decision
is
on
appeal
cannot
intervene
o Intervention
is
late
Complainant
parents
f
Ombudsman
filed
petition
for
review
on
certiorari
to
SC
alleging
o CA
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
holding
that
Ombudsman
had
no
authority
to
discipline
erring
members
of
the
DECS
ISSUE(S):
1. WON
Ombudsman
may
intervene
with
decisions
of
CA?
YES
2. WON
Ombudsman
may
directly
discipline
public
school
teachers?
-
YES
HELD/RATIO
(per
issue):
1. YES,
the
Ombudsman
may
intervene
provided
the
circumstances
show
that
the
rulings
adversely
affected
the
all-important
jurisdiction
of
the
Ombudsman
a. The
ruling
of
the
CA
has
a
serious
consequence
on
Ombudmans
effectiveness
as
the
body
charged
by
the
constitution
with
the
2.
Samson
v.
Restrivera
March
28,
2011
Villarama,
Jr.,
J.
Topic:
Extent
of
Ombudsmans
Powers
Doctrine:
Even
if
the
complaint
concerns
an
act
of
the
public
official
or
employee
which
is
not
service-connected,
the
case
is
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Ombudsman.
The
law
does
not
qualify
the
nature
of
the
illegal
act
or
omission
of
the
public
official
or
employee
that
the
Ombudsman
may
investigate.
FACTS:
Petitioner
Filipina
Samson,
a
govt
employee,
is
the
department
head
of
the
Population
Commision
with
the
Office
of
the
Provicial
Capitol
in
Cavite.
March
2001:
Samson
agreed
to
help
her
friend,
respondent
Julia
Restrivera,
to
have
the
latters
land
in
Carmona,
Cavite,
registered
under
the
Torrens
System.
She
accepted
P50,000
from
Restrivera
to
cover
initial
expenses.
However,
Samson
failed
to
accomplish
it
because
the
land
was
found
out
to
be
govt
property.
Upon
failing
to
return
the
money,
Restrivera
sued
her
for
estafa
and
also
filed
an
administrative
complaint
for
grave
misconduct
or
conduct
unbecoming
of
a
public
officer
against
Samson
before
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman.
Ombudsman:
found
Samson
guilty
of
violating
Sec.
4(b)
of
RA
6713
and
suspended
her
for
6
months
without
pay
(later
reduced
to
3
months).
She
embarked
on
her
private
interest
to
help
a
friend
secure
a
certificate
of
title
over
the
latters
land
and
created
a
perception
that
shes
a
fixer,
contrary
to
Sec.
4(b)
of
RA
6713
which
mandates
that
public
officials
and
employees
shall
endeavor
to
discourage
wrong
perception
of
their
roles
as
dispenser
of
peddler
of
undue
patronage.
Her
act
to
restore
the
P50,000
was
only
to
avoid
possible
sanction.
CA:
affirmed
Ombudsmans
Order
and
ruled
that
the
Ombudsman
has
jurisdiction
even
if
the
act
complained
of
is
a
private
matter.
CA
stressed
that
Section
4(b)
of
R.A.
No.
6713
requires
petitioner
to
perform
and
discharge
her
duties
with
the
highest
degree
of
excellence,
professionalism,
intelligence
and
skill,
and
to
endeavor
to
discourage
wrong
perceptions
of
her
role
as
a
dispenser
and
peddler
of
undue
patronage
Hence,
present
petition.
ISSUES:
1. WON
Ombudsman
has
jurisdiction
over
a
case
involving
a
private
dealing
by
a
govt
employee
or
where
the
act
complained
of
is
not
related
to
the
performance
of
official
duty
(MAIN)
2. WON
Samson
could
be
held
administratively
liable
even
if
the
estafa
case
against
her
was
dismissed
HELD:
Petitioner
Samson
Where
the
act
complained
of
is
not
related
to
the
performance
of
official
duty,
the
Ombudsman
has
no
jurisdiction.
Imputes
grave
abuse
of
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
CA
for
holding
her
administratively
liable.
She
points
out
that
the
estafa
case
was
dismissed
upon
a
finding
that
she
was
not
guilty
of
fraud
or
deceit,
hence
misconduct
cannot
be
attributed
to
her.
Even
assuming
that
she
is
guilty
of
misconduct,
she
is
entitled
to
the
benefit
of
mitigating
circumstances
such
as
the
fact
that
this
is
the
first
charge
against
her
in
her
long
years
of
public
service.
Respondent
Restrivera
The
issues
raised
in
the
instant
petition
are
the
same
issues
that
the
CA
correctly
resolved.
Alleges
that
petitioner
failed
to
observe
the
mandate
that
public
office
is
a
public
trust
when
she
meddled
in
an
affair
that
belongs
to
another
agency
and
received
an
amount
for
undelivered
work.
Section
13(1),
Article
XI
of
the
1987
Constitution
states
that
the
Ombudsman
can
investigate
on
its
own
or
on
complaint
by
any
person
any
act
or
omission
of
any
public
official
or
employee
when
such
act
or
omission
appears
to
be
illegal,
unjust,
or
improper.
Under
Section
16
of
R.A.
No.
6770,
otherwise
known
as
the
Ombudsman
Act
of
1989,
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Ombudsman
encompasses
all
kinds
of
malfeasance,
misfeasance,
and
nonfeasance
committed
by
any
public
officer
or
employee
during
his/her
tenure.
Section
19
of
R.A.
No.
6770
also
states
that
the
Ombudsman
shall
act
on
all
complaints
relating,
but
not
limited,
to
acts
or
omissions
which
are
unfair
or
irregular.
Thus,
even
if
the
complaint
concerns
an
act
of
the
public
official
or
employee
which
is
not
service-connected,
the
case
is
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Ombudsman.
The
law
does
not
qualify
the
nature
of
the
illegal
act
or
omission
of
the
public
official
or
employee
that
the
Ombudsman
may
2.
YES,
she
could
be
held
administratively
liable.
It
is
wrong
for
Samson
to
say
that
since
the
estafa
case
against
her
was
dismissed,
she
cannot
be
found
administratively
liable.
It
is
settled
that
administrative
cases
may
proceed
independently
of
criminal
proceedings,
and
may
continue
despite
the
dismissal
of
the
criminal
charges.