article 11 compile

8/11/2019 Article 11 Compile

1/76

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: On 29 December 1999, twenty- two officials and employees of the Officeof the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, led by its two directors, filed acomplaint with the Office of the Ombudsman requesting an investigation on the

basis of allegations that then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, herein privaterespondent rturo !o"ica, committed #1$ se%ual harassment against &ayvi'adua- Varona, mulcting money from confidential employees( )ames lueta and*den +iamco and # $ oppression against all employees in not releasing' ,2../.. in benefits of O!0- Visayas employees on the date the said amountwas due for release/ act-finding investigation was conducted by the Office of theOmbudsman and the report was referred by the Ombudsman to a constitutedommittee of 'eers which initially recommended that the investigation beconverted into one solely for purposes of impeachment/ 3owever, thisrecommendation was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman and following thestand of the Office of the Ombudsman that the Deputy Ombudsmen and 4he5pecial 'rosecutor are not removable through impeachment/

On 16 December 2..., despite the e%piration of private respondent !o"ica7s termof office, the ourt of ppeals nevertheless rendered the assailed Decision onthe grounds of public interest/ ruled that the Deputy Ombudsman is animpeachable officer/ 4hus, O!07s appeal/

ISSUE:

1/ 8hether or not the Ombudsman s Deputies are impeachable2/ 8hether or not the Deputy Ombudsman may be held criminally and:or

administratively liable

HELD: Order of the is &*V*&5*D and 5*4 5;D*/ 4he complaints inriminal ase


2/76

COA vs CA

FACTS:&espondent Aovernment 5ervice ;nsurance 5ystem #A5;5$ filed a 'etition for 'rohibition withthe dated 16 )uly 2..B against petitioner 5pecial udit 4eam #54$ of the ommission on

udit #O$ with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order #4&O$, awrit of preliminary prohibitory in"unction, and a writ of prohibition/ 5ubsequently, A5;5 alsosubmitted a !anifestation and !otion dated 21 )uly 2..B detailing the urgency of restrainingthe 54/ 4he issued a &esolution on 22 )uly 2..B ,directing petitioner 54 to submit thelatters comment, to be treated as ananswer/ dditionally, the granted the prayer of A5;5 for the issuance of a 4&O effectivesi%ty #=.$ days from notice / fter requiring the submission of memoranda, issued theassailed &esolution dated 2 5eptember 2..B in -A/&/ 5'


3/76

4he complaint alleges that #a$ respondent failed to utiliIe the calamity fund forthe purpose for which it was allocatedK #b$ he leased a portion of the barangaysidewal to mity ood orporation without the conformity of thebarangay kagawad K #c$ mity ood orporation issued chec s payable torespondent, not in the name of the 0arangayK #d$ he did not open any ban

account for and in the name of 0arangay 16 , Gone 1=K and #e$ he collected feesfor the use of the barangay chapel without remitting any single centavo to thebarangay treasurer/

&espondent filed a motion to dismiss the administrative complaint denying all thecharges and contending that the complaint was filed to harass him/

;n a Decision dated !ay 22, 2..1, the Office of the Ombudsman declaredrespondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct pre"udicial to thebest interest of the service and dismissed him from the service, thus(

ISSUE: whether the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss erring governmentofficials or employees/

FACTS: 5ection 1 # $, rticle >; of the 196 onstitution provides(

Section 13 / 4he Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,functions, and duties(

# $ Direct the officer concerned to ta e appropriate action against a public officialor employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith/

4he powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory/ 3is office wasgiven teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but alsoeffective/ 4hus, we hold that under &epublic ct


4/76

'urchase Order


5/76

#2$ *rrors of law or irregularities have been committedpre"udicial to the interest of the movants/ 4he motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three # $ days from filingKProvided , 4hat only one motion for reconsideration shall beentertained/

Ma o!o"sa#ic vs Co#e

FACTS: 'etitioner &omulo )/ !arohomsalic was employed as 5pecial Hand;nvestigator ; of the 'rovincial *nvironment and


6/76

that is equivalent to lac of "urisdiction/ ;t must be shown that the discretion wase%ercised arbitrarily or despotically/

tribunal, board or officer is said to have acted with grave abuse of discretionwhen it e%ercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of

passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount toan evasion or a virtual refusal to perform the duty en"oined or to act incontemplation of law/

0ased on the foregoing, the did not act with grave abuse of discretion when itdismissed !arohomsalic7s petition/

OMB vs Lison$ a

FACTS: dministrative charges for dishonesty and grave misconduct were filedby complainant &enato 5/ !uJoI, !ayor of the !unicipality of Ha'aI, gusan del 5ur, before the O!0 against therein respondents !ilagros

/ OrlandeI, &ey / 4orralba, and 4omas 0/ AomeI, doc eted as O!0-!- -.2-21B-3/ omplainant alleged that on B December 2..., the !unicipality of Ha'aI, gusan del 5ur, paid to &onwood onstruction 5upply the amountof ' ..,.../.. as payment for the delivery of 2,C.. bags of 'ortland cementintended to be used for the concreting of !orgadeI 5treet #'oblacion-3ospital&oad 5ection$/ 5he declared in her counter-affidavit that receiving supplies wasnot part of her duties and functions but somehow her name was included in the

ertificate of ;nspection form as one of the signatories therein/ On . )anuary 2.. , ampos, the representative from the !unicipal 4reasurywhose signature similarly appears on the ertificate of ;nspection, filed hercounter-affidavit and corroborated the earlier statement of her co-respondent 4orralba that there was actual delivery of 2,C.. bags of 'ortlandcement at the !unicipal gym of Ha 'aI/ &espondents filed a !otion for &econsideration which the O!0 denied in itsOrder dated 2C )uly 2.. / !'DO Hisondra and 5ergio filed a 'etition for &eviewon Certiorari before the ourt of ppeals/

ISSUE: 8hether or not the 3onorable ourt of ppeals committed graveabuse of discretion tantamount to e%cess or lac of "urisdiction/

HELD: 4he O!0 find merit in the 'etition and rule to grant the writof certiorari /O!0 s postulation may be summariIed into whether ornot the ourt of ppeals correctly held that O!0 has no power toimpose penalty on public officers/


7/76

4he O!0 is a constitutionally created office/ 4he mandate of the O!0 ise%pressed in 5ection 12, rticle >; of the onstitution(

5ec/ 12/ 4he 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 Aovernment, or anysubdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, inappropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action ta en andthe result thereof/

Mi o vs A%&gan FACTS: On October 16, 1996, around (.. p/m/ )erry 4an par ed his!itsubishi H- .. Van, with !otor


8/76

a doctrinal declaration of this Court. #n that case, The point of contention isthe bindin$ power of any decision or order that emanates from the !"ce ofthe !mbudsman after it has conducted its investi$ation. %nder &ection '( )(*of rticle +# of the ' - Constitution, it is provided/

Section 13. 4he Office of the Ombudsman shall have the followingpowers, functions, and duties( # $ Direct the officer concerned to ta e appropriate action against apublic official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensurecompliance therewith/

Cesa vs OMBFACTS: On !arch B, 1996, government auditors conducted a surpriseaudit at the ash Division of ebu ity 3all/ Aetting wind of the surpriseaudit, paymaster &osalina A/0adana hurriedly left her office and, sincethen, never returned/ rom 5eptember 2., 199B to !arch B,1996, 0adana had cash advances of more than '21= million fraudulentlyincurred by presenting cash items such as payrolls and vouchers alreadypreviously credited to her account to cover the balance or shortage duringcash counts/ 3er unliquidated cash advances were more than '16million/ 4he government auditors discovered that 0adana had an averagemonthly cash advance of ' /= million in e%cess of her monthly payrollof 'B/ million, and was granted more advances without liquidatingprevious advances/

On December 2., 2..C, the ourt of ppeals upheld the findings and

conclusions of the Ombudsman, but declared that the imposable penaltiestherein were merely recommendatory and should be directed to the proper officer or authority concerned for enforcement/ 4he ourt of ppealsdismissed esa s gripe that there was lac of due process as the Ombudsmancan underta e criminal or administrative investigations sans any complaint/ ;truled that procedural infirmities, if any, were cured when petitioner was presentduring the preliminary conference, submitted his counter-affidavit andsupplemental counter-affidavit, actively participated in the proceedings by cross-e%amining witnesses, and filed a motion for reconsideration/ ;tfound esa negligent for tolerating the illegal practices on cash advancesbecause he approved the paymasters requests for cash advances based onpieces of paper without any particulars and without diligent supervision over them/ 4he ourt of ppeals ruled that the Arias ruling where this ourt held thatheads of offices have to rely to a reasonable e%tent on their subordinates, isinapplicable to this case for it had not been alleged that esa conspired


9/76

with 0adana/ 8hat was proven was that his negligence in carrying out his dutiesas city treasurer contributed to giving 0adana the opportunity to malverse morethan '16 million in public funds/

ISSUE: 8hether as the court of appeals ruled in its assailed decision

HELD: 4he standard of due process of administrative tribunals allows certainlatitude as long as the element of fairness is practiced/ 4here is no denial of dueprocess if records show that hearings were held with prior notice to adverseparties/ *ven without notice, there is no denial of procedural due process if theparties were given the opportunity to be heard/ Due process in administrativeproceedings simply means an opportunity to see a reconsideration of the order complained of and it cannot be fully equated with that in strict "urisprudential

sense/ respondent is not entitled to be informed of the preliminary findings andrecommendations of the investigating agencyK he is entitled only to a fair opportunity to be heard and to a decision based on substantial evidence/


10/76

#a$ and #e$ of &epublic ct #&/ /$


11/76


12/76

Tabugara

Article 9 Section 2 and Section 3

CSC v. Javier

Facts:NITA P. JAVI ! "as a Cor#orate Secretar$ o% t&e 'oard o% Trustees o% t&e cor#oration.(n Jul$ )*+ 2,,)+ a -ont& s&$ o% &er * t& birt&da$+ res#ondent o#ted %or earl$ retire-ent and recorres#onding -onetar$ bene%its.(n A#ril 3+ 2,,2+ /SIS President 0inston F. /arcia+ "it& t&e a##roval o% t&e 'oard o% Trustees+ reres#ondent as Cor#orate Secretar$+ t&e sa-e #osition s&e le%t and retired %ro- barel$ a $ear earlie"as * $ears old at t&e ti-e o% &er rea##oint-ent. In its !esolution+ t&e 'oard o% Trustees classa##oint-ent as 1con%idential in nature and t&e tenure o% o%%ice is at t&e #leasure o% t&e 'oard.Petitioner alleges t&at res#ondent s rea##oint-ent on con%idential status "as -eant to illegall$ e tenand circu-vent t&e la"s on co-#ulsor$ retire-ent. T&is is because under !e#ublic Act 4!.A.5 No/overn-ent Service Insurance S$ste- Act o% )997+ t&e co-#ulsor$ retire-ent age %or govern-ent e

$ears.

Issue:0&et&er or not t&e Court be bound b$ a classi%ication o% a #osition as con%idential alread$ -adebranc& o% govern-ent.

eld:Juris#rudence establis&es t&at t&e Court is not bound b$ t&e classi%ication o% #ositions in t&e ct&e legislative or e ecutive branc&es+ or even b$ a constitutional bod$ li e t&e #etitioner. T&e-a e its o"n deter-ination as to t&e nature o% a #articular #osition+ suc& as "&et&er it is a #ri-aril$#osition or not+ "it&out being bound b$ #rior classi%ications -ade b$ ot&er bodies.

/ri;o v. CSC

Facts:Petitioner Si to


13/76

(%%icer II.(ne -ont& later+ a%ter Si-#licio /ri;o assu-ed o%%ice as t&e ne"l$ elected governor o% Iloilo on &e in%or-ed res#ondent Arandela and all t&e legal o%%icers at t&e Provincial Attorne$ s (%%iceter-inate t&eir services. In &is letter+ #etitioner /ri;o -ade -ention o% an article #ertaining to t&et&e Provincial Attorne$ "&ic& a##eared in t&e Pana$ Ne"s and "&ic& 1under-ined t&at trust andre#osed on t&e-. Petitioner


14/76

An action %or -anda-us "it& da-ages to declare t&e abolition o% t&e #etitioner s #osition void+ anres#ondent Cit$ @a$or to reinstate t&e- to t&eir %or-er #ositions. (rdinance No. )92 abolis&ed )8 #Cit$ @a$or s o%%ice and )7 #ositions in t&e (%%ice o% t&e @unici#al 'oard "it& an alleged econreason %or t&e abolition.

Issue:

0&et&er or not t&e (rdinace No. )92 "as done in bad %ait&+ "it& #ersonal or #olitical #ur#ose and

eld:T&e reason given %or t&e abolition o% t&e #ositions is untrue+ and constitutes a -ere subter%uge"it&out cause o% t&e said a##ellees+ in violation o% Civil Service tenures as #rovided b$ t&e Conabolition o% t&e #ositions+ t&e o%%ice o% t&e Cit$ @a$or no less t&an 38 ne" #ositions calling#esos #er annu-.

A decent res#ect %or t&e Civil Service #rovisions o% our Constitution dictates t&at civil service elrendered long and &onorable services+ s&ould not be sacri%iced in %avor o% non?eligibles givencreation+ nor s&ould be le%t at t&e -erc$ o% #olitical c&anges.

Aba ada /rou# Part$list v. Purisi-a

Facts:!A 9338 "as enacted to o#ti-i>e t&e revenue?generation ca#abilit$ and collection o% t&e 'ureau o%!evenue 4'I!5 and t&e 'ureau o% Custo-s 4'(C5. T&e la" intends to encourage 'I! and '(C o%%icials

to e ceed t&eir revenue targets b$ #roviding a s$ste- o% re"ards and sanctions t&roug& t&e creatioand Incentives Fund 4Fund5 and a !evenue Per%or-ance valuation 'oard 4'oard5. It covers all o%%e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C "it& at least si -ont&s o% service+ regardless o% e-#lo$-ent stat

T&e 'oards &as t&e dut$ to 4)5 #rescribe t&e rules and guidelines %or t&e allocation+ distributioFundD 425 set criteria and #rocedures %or re-oving %ro- t&e service o%%icials and e-#lo$ees "&collection %alls s&ort o% t&e targetD 435 ter-inate #ersonnel in accordance "it& t&e criteria ado#4 5 #rescribe a s$ste- %or #er%or-ance evaluationD 485 #er%or- ot&er %unctions+ including t&e iregulations and 4*5 sub-it an annual re#ort to Congress. 7

T&e


15/76

constitutionall$ -andated dut$ o% t&ese o%%icials and e-#lo$ees to serve t&e #eo#le "it& ut-ost reintegrit$+ lo$alt$ and e%%icienc$.

Petitioners also clai- t&at li-iting t&e sco#e o% t&e s$ste- o% re"ards and incentives onl$ to o%%io% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C violates t&e constitutional guarantee o% e ual #rotection. T&ere is no valid classi%ication or distinction as to "&$ suc& a s$ste- s&ould not a##l$ to o%%icials and e-#lo$ees govern-ent agencies.

Issue:

0&et&er or not !A 9338 violates securit$ o% tenure o% o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&

eld:

Clearl$+ !A 9338 in no "a$ violates t&e securit$ o% tenure o% o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'Iguarantee o% securit$ o% tenure onl$ -eans t&at an e-#lo$ee cannot be dis-issed %ro- t&e service t&an t&ose #rovided b$ la" and onl$ a%ter due #rocess is accorded t&e e-#lo$ee. In t&e case o% !do"n a reasonable $ardstic %or re-oval 4"&en t&e revenue collection %alls s&ort o% t&e target b$"it& due consideration o% all relevant %actors a%%ecting t&e level o% collection. T&is standard ine%%icienc$ and inco-#etence in t&e #er%or-ance o% o%%icial duties+ a ground %or disci#linarservice la"s. T&e action %or re-oval is also subBect to civil service la"s+ rules and regulations and substantive and #rocedural due #rocess.

CSC v. SoBor

FACTS

!es#ondent enr$ A SoBor "as a##ointed b$ t&en President Cora>on A uino as #resident o%Pol$tec&nic College 4CVPC5 in


16/76

acade-ic %reedo- o% CVPCD and t&at t&e #o"er to re-ove+ sus#end+ and disci#line t&e #re clusivel$ lodged in t&e '(T o% CVPC. T&e CA resolved in %avor o% res#ondent. It annulleresolutions and #er-anentl$ enBoined t&e CSC %ro- #roceeding "it& t&e ad-inistrative investig#etition "as %iled b$ CSC.

ISSH S

0&et&er or not t&e CSC &as Burisdiction in t&e disci#line and re-oval o% state universit$ o%%ic

!H=IN/

The Constitution $rants to the C&C administration over the entire civil service. s de0ned, thembraces every branch, a$ency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the $overnment, in$overnment1owned or controlled corporation. #t is further classi0ed into career and non1positions. The C&C has also been $ranted by the Constitution and the dministrative Code juall civil service positions in the $overnment service, whether career or non1career. s provid%niform Rules on dministrative Cases in the Civil &ervice &ec. 52 34xcept as otherwise prConstitution or by law, the Civil &ervice Commission shall have the 0nal authority to pass uposeparation and suspension of all o"cers and employees in the civil service and upon all mattthe conduct, discipline and e"ciency of such o"cers and employees. r$ument of the re!R has the sole authority to discipline and remove his o"ce cannot prosper. The powerdiscipline o"cials and employees is not exclusive. C&C has concurrent jurisdiction over astate university. cademic freedom cannot be invo7ed by &ojor as this is not applicable to the#t cannot be justi0ed that he is within the bounds of academic freedom since administrative ca$ainst him involve violations of civil service rules. 8etition was $ranted by the &upreme Courtthe decision of the Court of ppeals.

PCSO Board of Directors v. Lapid

Facts:!ecords s&o" t&at t&e #resent case is rooted on t&e S"orn State-ent e ecuted b$ @r. =olito (.C&ie% =otter$ (#erations (%%icer+ P&ili##ine C&arit$ S"ee#sta es (%%ice 4PCS(5 'ataan Provon June 23+ 2,,8. Said S"orn State-ent docu-ented an incident "&ic& allegedl$ occurred on June )"&erein res#ondent?a##ellant @arie Jean C. =a#id+ Casual Cler 4Acting Teller5+ con%ronted+ bs&outed invectives at @r. /ue-o+ in t&e #resence o% ot&er e-#lo$ees and #atients see ing assistt&e PCS(?'ataan Provincial on


17/76

(n June 2,+ 2,,8+ /ue-o sent a @e-orandu- to res#ondent?a##ellant =a#id+ re uiring &er to e"riting "it&in sevent$ t"o 4725 &ours "&$ no ad-inistrative c&arges s&ould be %iled against &er at&e June )7+ 2,,8 incident. =a#id "as also %urnis&ed "it& a co#$ o% t&e incident re#ort. (n Junres#ondent?a##ellant sub-itted &er re#l$ to /ue-o s June 2,+ 2,,8 @e-orandu-. In res#ondent?a#re#l$ s&e denied t&e events+ as stated in /ue-o s incident re#ort+ and gave &er o"n version o% t=a#id also alluded to t&e %iling o% a case against /ue-o "it& t&is Co--ission %or &arass-ebe&avior+ discourtes$ and o##ression.

T&e PCS( =egal + sent a @=a#id on June 27+ 2,,8+ as ing t&e latter to res#ond to t&e A%%idavit?Co-#laint o% /ue-o. a##ellant sub-itted &er Ans"er+ "it& Co--ent and @otion and @otion to


18/76


19/76

Sa-son v. CA

Fact:A( No. 3+ issued b$ @a$or Sa-son o% Caloocan Cit$+ su--aril$ ter-inated t&e services o% res#ond&eld #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or on t&e ground o% lac and loss o% con%idenceK and a#osition.

!A No. 22*, declares t&e #osition o% secretaries to cit$ -a$ors non?co-#etitive and t&is "as inter#rSa-son as to include t&e #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or.

Issue:=egalit$ o% Ad-inistrative (rder No. 3

eld:Secretar$ to t&e @a$or and Asst. Secretar$ to t&e @a$or are t"o se#arate and distinct #ositions. (ncategor$ and ran t&an t&e ot&er. T&e %unctions strictl$ attributable to a secretar$+K is not auto-trans%erred to an assistant secretar$+K because t&e latter si-#l$ assists or aids t&e %or-er in t&e ao% &is duties.

Ac&acoso v. @acaraig

Fact:!A No. *7)8


20/76

t&e constitutional guarantee o% securit$ o% tenure.

'ina-ira v. /aruc&o

Fact:'ina-ira see s reinstate-ent to t&e o%%ice o% /eneral @anager o% t&e P&ili##ine Touris- Aut&oritdesignated as general @anager b$ t&e C&air-an o% t&e PTA 'oard.

In )99,+ Pres. A uino sent /arruc&o+ Secretar$ o% Touris-+ a -e-orandu- stating t&at &is designatibecause it "as not &er+ t&e President+ "&o a##ointed &i- as "&at is re uired b$ P< No. 8* . As sucin t&e #osition until t&e President a##oints a #erson to serve in a #er-anent ca#acit$.

Isuue:

0&et&er or not t&ere is valid a##oint-ent

Held!ppointment and designation are distinct from each other. "he former is defined as the selection# by the authwith the power# of an individual who is to e$ercise the functions of a given office. %hen completed# the appin security of tenure. Designation# on the other hand# connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duincumbent official and is legislative in nature. "he implication is that he shall hold office only in a temporar may be replaced at will by the appointing authority.

Tabugara

Article 9 Section 2 and Section 3

CSC v. Javier

Facts:NITA P. JAVI ! "as a Cor#orate Secretar$ o% t&e 'oard o% Trustees o% t&e cor#oration.(n Jul$ )*+ 2,,)+ a -ont& s&$ o% &er * t& birt&da$+ res#ondent o#ted %or earl$ retire-ent and recorres#onding -onetar$ bene%its.(n A#ril 3+ 2,,2+ /SIS President 0inston F. /arcia+ "it& t&e a##roval o% t&e 'oard o% Trustees+ reres#ondent as Cor#orate Secretar$+ t&e sa-e #osition s&e le%t and retired %ro- barel$ a $ear earlie"as * $ears old at t&e ti-e o% &er rea##oint-ent. In its !esolution+ t&e 'oard o% Trustees classa##oint-ent as 1con%idential in nature and t&e tenure o% o%%ice is at t&e #leasure o% t&e 'oard.Petitioner alleges t&at res#ondent s rea##oint-ent on con%idential status "as -eant to illegall$ e tenand circu-vent t&e la"s on co-#ulsor$ retire-ent. T&is is because under !e#ublic Act 4!.A.5 No/overn-ent Service Insurance S$ste- Act o% )997+ t&e co-#ulsor$ retire-ent age %or govern-ent e

$ears.

Issue:


21/76

0&et&er or not t&e Court be bound b$ a classi%ication o% a #osition as con%idential alread$ -adebranc& o% govern-ent.

eld:Juris#rudence establis&es t&at t&e Court is not bound b$ t&e classi%ication o% #ositions in t&e ct&e legislative or e ecutive branc&es+ or even b$ a constitutional bod$ li e t&e #etitioner. T&e-a e its o"n deter-ination as to t&e nature o% a #articular #osition+ suc& as "&et&er it is a #ri-aril$#osition or not+ "it&out being bound b$ #rior classi%ications -ade b$ ot&er bodies.

/ri;o v. CSCFacts:Petitioner Si to


22/76

legal o%%icer is undeniabl$ one "&ic& is #ri-aril$ con%idential.!es#ondents+ on t&e ot&er &and+ -aintain t&at since t&e Civil Service Co--ission &as alread$ clao% #rivate res#ondent Arandela as a career #osition and certi%ied t&e sa-e as #er-anent+ &e is rcause+ and t&ere%oreCadiente is not a##licable. T&e Court %inds t&at #rivate res#ondent Arandor re-oved %ro- o%%ice "&en &is services "ere ter-inated. is ter- -erel$ e #ired."hus# with respect to the legal assistants or subordinates of the provincial attorney namely# Cirilo &elve'on#on and )elson &eduspan# the Cadiente and Besa rulings cannot apply. "he latter have been employed du*ualifications. "heir positions are highly technical in character and not confidential# so they are permanentthey belong to the category of classified employees under the Civil Service Law. "hus# the items of Senior LLegal Officer ++ remain permanent as classified by the Civil Service Commission. Conse*uently# the hoitems# being permanent employees# en,oy security of tenure as guaranteed under the Constitution.'riones v. (s-e;a

Fact:An action %or -anda-us "it& da-ages to declare t&e abolition o% t&e #etitioner s #osition void+ an

res#ondent Cit$ @a$or to reinstate t&e- to t&eir %or-er #ositions. (rdinance No. )92 abolis&ed )8 #Cit$ @a$or s o%%ice and )7 #ositions in t&e (%%ice o% t&e @unici#al 'oard "it& an alleged econreason %or t&e abolition.

Issue:

0&et&er or not t&e (rdinace No. )92 "as done in bad %ait&+ "it& #ersonal or #olitical #ur#ose and

eld:T&e reason given %or t&e abolition o% t&e #ositions is untrue+ and constitutes a -ere subter%uge"it&out cause o% t&e said a##ellees+ in violation o% Civil Service tenures as #rovided b$ t&e Conabolition o% t&e #ositions+ t&e o%%ice o% t&e Cit$ @a$or no less t&an 38 ne" #ositions calling#esos #er annu-.

A decent res#ect %or t&e Civil Service #rovisions o% our Constitution dictates t&at civil service elrendered long and &onorable services+ s&ould not be sacri%iced in %avor o% non?eligibles givencreation+ nor s&ould be le%t at t&e -erc$ o% #olitical c&anges.

Aba ada /rou# Part$list v. Purisi-a

Facts:!A 9338 "as enacted to o#ti-i>e t&e revenue?generation ca#abilit$ and collection o% t&e 'ureau o%!evenue 4'I!5 and t&e 'ureau o% Custo-s 4'(C5. T&e la" intends to encourage 'I! and '(C o%%icialsto e ceed t&eir revenue targets b$ #roviding a s$ste- o% re"ards and sanctions t&roug& t&e creatioand Incentives Fund 4Fund5 and a !evenue Per%or-ance valuation 'oard 4'oard5. It covers all o%%e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C "it& at least si -ont&s o% service+ regardless o% e-#lo$-ent stat

T&e 'oards &as t&e dut$ to 4)5 #rescribe t&e rules and guidelines %or t&e allocation+ distributio


23/76

FundD 425 set criteria and #rocedures %or re-oving %ro- t&e service o%%icials and e-#lo$ees "&collection %alls s&ort o% t&e targetD 435 ter-inate #ersonnel in accordance "it& t&e criteria ado#4 5 #rescribe a s$ste- %or #er%or-ance evaluationD 485 #er%or- ot&er %unctions+ including t&e iregulations and 4*5 sub-it an annual re#ort to Congress. 7

T&e on A uino as #resident o%Pol$tec&nic College 4CVPC5 in


24/76

Trustees "&en t&e la" -andated t&at a '(T be %or-ed to act as t&e governing bod$ in state colleg2,, + CVPC converted into t&e Negros (riental State Hniversit$ 4N(!SH5+ t&e 'oard o% !egents 4t&e '(T as its governing bod$. @ean"&ile t&e res#ondent "as c&arged "it& 3 ad-inistrative case%acult$ -e-bers be%ore t&e CSC !egional (%%ice 4CSC?!(5 No. VII in Cebu Cit$ na-el$: 4)5


25/76

!ecords s&o" t&at t&e #resent case is rooted on t&e S"orn State-ent e ecuted b$ @r. =olito (.C&ie% =otter$ (#erations (%%icer+ P&ili##ine C&arit$ S"ee#sta es (%%ice 4PCS(5 'ataan Provon June 23+ 2,,8. Said S"orn State-ent docu-ented an incident "&ic& allegedl$ occurred on June )"&erein res#ondent?a##ellant @arie Jean C. =a#id+ Casual Cler 4Acting Teller5+ con%ronted+ bs&outed invectives at @r. /ue-o+ in t&e #resence o% ot&er e-#lo$ees and #atients see ing assistt&e PCS(?'ataan Provincial on


26/76

b$ securit$ o% tenure as t&e$ -a$ be re-oved %ro- t&e service "it& or "it&out cause+ a recent casCourt &eld ot&er"ise %or even a casual or te-#orar$ e-#lo$ee enBo$s securit$ o% tenure and cae ce#t %or cause enu-erated in Sec. 22+ !ule LIV o% t&e (-nibus Civil Service !ules and !egula#ertinent la"s. K Absent+ t&ere%ore+ a #roven cause to dis-iss+ t&e CA &eld t&at =a#id "as disas conte-#lated in la". !egarding t&e uestion o% due #rocess+K =a#id argued t&at s&e "as denied &er rig&t t&ereto bagainst &er "ere not dul$ #roven. T&e su##osed For-al C&arge "as unsigned and+ "orse+ it "as not%or-al investigation "as ever conducted on &er case. T&e CA again ruled %or =a#id and &eld t&a#rocess.

CSC v. PA/C(!

Facts:

Ariel !. @ar ue> and Ireneo @. Vedillo "ere bot& e-#lo$ed as dealers in t&e ga-e o% Cra#s at t&e P

A-use-ent and /a-ing Cor#oration 4PA/C(!5 at t&e Casino Fili#ino eritage.(n Nove-ber 2*+ 2,,*+ @ar ue> and Verdillo alternatel$ -anned Cra#s Table No. 3,+ toget&er "it&@aga&is and Virgilio !uanto. At around 2: * a.-.+ @r. Jo&nn$ C&eng began #la$ing at Cra#s TabVerdillo as stic -an and @ar ue> as t&e #a$?o%% dealer. 0&ile doing &er rounds+ Acting Pit Su#enoticed t&at on several occasions Verdillo -ade a good diceK call even t&oug& not one o% t&e dict&ro" &it t&e table s rubber "all. Alar-ed b$ "&at s&e sa"+ Mang re#orted t&e -atter to t&e CasinoT&erea%ter+ @r. Ariston Tangalin+ t&e Acting Casino S&i%t @anager+ re uested to revie" t&e CTelevision 4CCTV5 %ootage o% t&e incident. A%ter "atc&ing t&e %ootage+ t&e -e-bers o% t&et&e investigators %ro- t&e Cor#orate Investigation Hnit "ere convinced t&at several void t&ro"s "egood diceK in Table No. 3, "&ile t&e sa-e "as being -anned b$ @ar ue> and Verdillo.

Issue:

"&et&er or not @ar ue> and Verdillo are guilt$ o% dis&onest$+ violation o% o%%ice rules and re#reBudicial to t&e best interest o% t&e service to Busti%$ t&eir dis-issal %ro- service.

eld:

In t&e #resent case+ t&e CSC %ound t&at a %or-al c&arge "as issued identi%$ing t&e ad-inistratico--itted b$ @ar ue>. A @e-orandu- dated Nove-ber 26+ 2,,* "as issued c&arging @ar ue> o%Verdillo and C&eng in de%rauding PA/C(! during void ga-ing transactions at Table No. 3, on sever"as t&en re uired to e #lain in "riting "it&in 72 &ours %ro- recei#t o% t&e @e-orandu-. !ecords als#artici#ated in t&e investigation b$ e ecuting a Sinu-#aang Sala$sa$ . T&erea%ter+ t&e '@P o%eritage conducted a %or-al investigation and invited &i- to attend t&e -eeting on


27/76

&is side. Clearl$+ @ar ue> "as su%%icientl$ in%or-ed o% t&e basis o% t&e c&arge against &i- a&i-sel%. e "as given ever$ o##ortunit$ to #resent &is side o% t&e case.

T&e %ailure to designate t&e o%%ense s#eci%icall$ and "it& #recision is o% no -o-ent in t&is ad

essence o% due #rocess in ad-inistrative #roceedings is t&at a #art$ be a%%orded a reasonable o##&eard and to sub-it an$ evidence &e -a$ &ave in su##ort o% &is de%ense. T&e la" si-#l$ re uires servant is in%or-ed o% t&e nature and cause o% accusation against &i- in a clear and concise -anne#erson a c&ance to ans"er t&e allegations intelligentl$. videntl$+ PA/C(! substantiall$ co-#lied "it&re uire-ents o% due #rocess %or ad-inistrative cases.

Sa-son v. CA

Fact:A( No. 3+ issued b$ @a$or Sa-son o% Caloocan Cit$+ su--aril$ ter-inated t&e services o% res#ond&eld #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or on t&e ground o% lac and loss o% con%idenceK and a#osition.

!A No. 22*, declares t&e #osition o% secretaries to cit$ -a$ors non?co-#etitive and t&is "as inter#rSa-son as to include t&e #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or.

Issue:=egalit$ o% Ad-inistrative (rder No. 3

eld:Secretar$ to t&e @a$or and Asst. Secretar$ to t&e @a$or are t"o se#arate and distinct #ositions. (ncategor$ and ran t&an t&e ot&er. T&e %unctions strictl$ attributable to a secretar$+K is not auto-trans%erred to an assistant secretar$+K because t&e latter si-#l$ assists or aids t&e %or-er in t&e ao% &is duties.

Ac&acoso v. @acaraig

Fact:!A No. *7)8


28/76

T&e constitutionalit$ o% t&e #rovisions o% !A No. *7)8.

eld:T&e #etitioners &ave t&e rig&t to re-ain in o%%ice until t&e e #iration o% t&e ter-s %or "&ic& ta##ointed+ unless sooner re-oved %or cause #rovided b$ la".K

A recogni>ed cause %or re-oval or ter-ination is t&e abolition b$ la" o% &is o%%ice as a result o%carried out b$ reason o% econo-$ or to re-ove redundanc$ o% %unctions+ or clear and e #licit cons%or suc& ter-ination o% e-#lo$-ent.

Abolition o% o%%ice is not t&e sa-e as declaring t&at o%%ice is vacant. T&e latter "ould constitut&e constitutional guarantee o% securit$ o% tenure.

'ina-ira v. /aruc&o

Fact:'ina-ira see s reinstate-ent to t&e o%%ice o% /eneral @anager o% t&e P&ili##ine Touris- Aut&oritdesignated as general @anager b$ t&e C&air-an o% t&e PTA 'oard.

In )99,+ Pres. A uino sent /arruc&o+ Secretar$ o% Touris-+ a -e-orandu- stating t&at &is designatibecause it "as not &er+ t&e President+ "&o a##ointed &i- as "&at is re uired b$ P< No. 8* . As sucin t&e #osition until t&e President a##oints a #erson to serve in a #er-anent ca#acit$.

Isuue:

0&et&er or not t&ere is valid a##oint-ent

eld:A##oint-ent and designation are distinct %ro- eac& ot&er. T&e %or-er is de%ined as t&e selectionvested "it& t&e #o"er+ o% an individual "&o is to e ercise t&e %unctions o% a given o%%ice. 0&a##oint-ent results in securit$ o% tenure.


29/76

uenaseda and several other $overnment o"cials of the Department of ealth )D! *. The !mbudsmanEasqueF*, ordered the suspension of uenaseda et al. The suspension was carried on by then D! &ecrGlavier, bein$ the o"cer in char$e over uenaseda et al. uenaseda et al then 0led with the &upreme Cfor certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, questionin$ the suspension order. 9C< submitted its Comm8etition where they attached a


30/76

Case: Bu#eau +0 In)e#na! Revenue v O (e +0 )2e O3-uds3an4R NO 11'15/6 A #"! 116$55$Fa()s: The !"ce of the !mbudsman received information from an informer1for1reward that tax refundanomalously $ranted to Distillera :imtuaco I Co., #nc. and :a TondeKa Distilleries, #nc. %pon receipt of t&oquilon recommended to then !mbudsman Conrado


31/76

Case: Pe#e9 v Sand",an-a.an'5/ SCRA $'$Fa()s: !n '(


32/76

accused, respondent !mbudsman did not act with $rave abuse of discretion.

THE SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BARANGAY DON MARIANO MARCOS, MUNICIPALITY OF BANUEVA VISCAYA represented by BARANGAY AGA!AD "OSE CENEN SANTOS, MARIO BACUD, !ALTERSEBASTIAN, LAURETA CABAUATAN, CECILIA ALINDAYU #nd MELY SIMANGAN, petitioners#vs.PUNONG BARANGAY SEVERINO MARTINE$, respondent.

-acts

"his is a Petition for eview on Certiorari under ule /0 of the ules of Court# assailing the Orders dated 12 October 1220of the egional "rial Court 5trial court6# Branch 17# of Bayombong# )ueva 8i'caya# in Special Civil !ction )o. 9717. +n its assailcourt ruled that the Sangguniang Bayan of Bayombong# )euva 8i'caya 5Sangguniang Bayan6# e$ceeded its ,urisdiction when it irespondent Severino :artine' the administrative penalty of removal from office.

+ssues

"he pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan may remove :artine'# an elective local official# from offic

Held

Section 92 of the Local &overnment Code conferred upon the courts the power to remove elective local officials from office

Section 92. &rounds for Disciplinary !ctions.;!n elective local official may be disciplined# suspended# or removed frothe following grounds

!n elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. 5# or sometime prior or subse*uent thereto# in the :unicipality of San:anuel# Pangasinan# Philippines# and within the ,urisdiction of this Honorable Court# the above(named

accused# S!L8!DO P<


33/76

3. %hether or not there is a denial of procedural due process on the part of the petitioners when the SpecialProsecutor filed the !mended +nformation without authority from or the approval of the HonorableOmbudsman# and against the latter s specific instruction

1. %hether or not the !mended +nformation is valid in the absence of such authority or approval of theOmbudsman under the circumstances and

4. %hether or not respondent Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac ore$cess of ,urisdiction# when it admitted the !mended +nformation which bears no approval of theHonorable Ombudsman# and against the latter s written instruction to submit to him for approval the resultof the re(study before the filing of said !mended +nformation. 30

Held

Ander the 3=>7 Constitution# the Ombudsman 5as distinguished from the incumbent "anodbayan6 ischarged with the duty to

E+nvestigate 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# un,ust# improper orinefficient.E 5Sec. 34# par. 36

"he Constitution li ewise provides that

E"he e$isting "anodbayan shall hereafter be nown as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. +t shall continueto function and e$ercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law# e$cept those conferred onthe Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.E 5!rt. F+# Section 76 5+talics ours6.

Pursuing the present line of reasoning# when one considers that by e$press mandate of paragraph ># Section34# !rticle F+ of the Constitution# the Ombudsman may Ee$ercise such other powers or perform functionsor duties as may be provided by law#E it is indubitable then that Congress has the power to place the Officeof the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the Ombudsman. +n the same vein# Congress may remove

some of the powers granted to the "anodbayan by P.D. )o. 3942 and transfer them to the Ombudsman orgrant the Office of the Special Prosecutor such other powers and functions and duties as Congress maydeem fit and wise. "his Congress did through the passage of .! )o. 9772. 14

"he instant Petition for Certiorari is & !)"ose T. uencamino, petitioner, is the incumbent mayor of &an


34/76

authority, acts unbecomin$ of a public o"cer, and violation of Republic ct )R. .* 9o. (J') nti1@raft and Corrupt 8ractices ct*. #n his complaint, private respondent alle$ed, amon$others, that the act of petitioner in demandin$ payment )without o"cial receipt* of a 3passway fee or a re$ulatory fee of 8',JJJ.JJ for every delivery truc7 that passes the territorial

jurisdiction of &an


35/76

herein respondents 4ufrocinia


36/76

eld

Mandatory nature o preventivesuspension

#t is well1settled that preventive suspension under &ection '( of R. . 9o. (J' is 3anda)+#. .

#t is evident from the very wordin$ of the law/

Suspension and loss of bene ts . ny incumbent public o"cer a$ainst whom any criminalprosecution under a valid information under this ct or under Title , oo7 ## of the Revised8enal Code or for any oOense involvin$ fraud upon the $overnment or public funds or property,whether as a simple or as a complex oOense and in whatever sta$e of the execution and modeof participation, is pendin$ in court, shall be suspended from o"ce.

Criminal and administrative cases separate and distinct

#t is clear that criminal and administrative cases are distinct from each other. The settled ruleis that criminal and civil cases are alto$ether diOerent from administrative matters, such thatthe 0rst two will not inevitably $overn or aOect the third and vice versa. Eerily, administrativecases may proceed independently of criminal proceedin$s. criminal actions will not precludeadministrative proceedin$s, and vice1versa, insofar as the application of the law on preventivesuspension is concerned.

Preventive suspension not a penalty

8reventive suspension is distinct from the penalty. ;hile the former may be imposed on arespondent durin$ the investi$ation of the char$es a$ainst him, the latter may be meted out tohim at the 0nal disposition of the case.

Sec. 13 o R.A. No. 3019 not a penal provision ut a procedural one

8enal statutes are strictly construed while procedural statutes are liberally construed)Crawford, &tatutory Construction, #nterpretation of :aws, pp. Q6J1Q6'2 Lacson v. Romero , B8hil. Q56 S' 5( *. The test in determinin$ if a statute is penal is whether a penalty is imposedfor the punishment of a wron$ to the public or for the redress of an injury to an individual )5CorpuF >uris, &ec. 65-2 Crawford, &tatutory Construction, pp. Q 61Q *. Code prescribin$ the

procedure in criminal cases is not a penal statute and is to be interpreted liberally ) People v. dler , 'QJ 9.=. (('2 (5 9.4. 6QQ*.

Automatic li t o suspension a ter ninety !90" days

#t must be borne in mind that the preventive suspension of petitioners will only lastninety ) J* days, not the entire duration of the criminal case li7e petitioners seem to thin7.#ndeed, it would be constitutionally proscribed if the suspension were to be of an inde0niteduration or for an unreasonable len$th of time. The Court has thus laid down the rule that


37/76

preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of ninety ) J* days, inconsonance with 8residential Decree 9o. -J , now &ection 5B of the dministrative Code of ' - .


38/76

;n the absence of any administrative action ta en against him by the ourt with regard to hiscertificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into theourt s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of thedoctrine of separation of powers/

rt/ V;;;, 5ec/ = of the onstitution e%clusively vests in the 5 administrative supervision over allcourts and court personnel, from the 'residing )ustice of the down to the lowest municipaltrial court cler / 0y virtue of this power, it is only the 5 that can oversee the "udges and courtpersonnel s compliance with all laws, and ta e the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof/


39/76

Ees/5ection 12, rticle >; of the onstitution states that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, asprotectors of the people, shall act promptly on ?complaints filed in any form or manner againstpublic officials or employees of Aovernment/@ ;n Almonte v. #as$ e% ,N1B we held that evenunverified and anonymous letters may suffice to start an investigation/ ;n permitting the filing of complaints ?in any form or manner,@ the framers of the onstitution too into account the well-nown reticence of the people which eep them from complaining against official

wrongdoings/ 4he Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory andprosecutory agencies of the government because those sub"ect to its "urisdiction are publicofficials who, through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigationsheld against them/ N1=

5. Honasan II v. Pane# o6 Investigating P osec&to s * GR No. '5+-,-7 A8 i# '47 099,acts(

ugust C, 2.. ( ;DA-'


40/76

3eld( 8herefore, the petition for certiorari is D;5!;55*D for lac of merit

1/


41/76

acts(4hat, during the period from 1 !ay 199C to .9 )une 199 , or for sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the ity of !anila, the first two #2$ accused ntonio '/ 0elicena and Rldarico '/

ndutan, )r/, both public officers, being then the ssistant 5ecretary: dministrator, and Deputy*%ecutive Director, respectively, of the One 5top 5hop ;nter- gency 4a% redit S Duty Drawbacenter, Department of inance, !anila, while in the performance of their official functions andacting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and confederating with each other,together with accused !onico V/ )acob, elso H/ Hegarda, bdulaIiI / l-+hayyal, polinario A/&eyes, &eynaldo V/ ampos and &afael 5/ DiaI, )r/, all officials of 'etron orporation, and

ntonio 3/ &oman, 5r/ and !arialen / orpuI, both officers of ilsyn orporation, did then andthere unlawfully and &sic' recommend and criminally approve the transfer of the following 4a%redit ertificates purportedly issued to ilsyn orp/

;55R*( 8:< the Ombudsman:5pecial 'rosecutor should be ordered by the 5andiganbayan

under pain of contempt, to e%plain the delay in the submission of his report on his reinvestigation/

3*HD( 8e agree with the 5andiganbayan that the dismissal of the cases was precipitate and

unwarranted/ 4he 5tate should not be pre"udiced and deprived of its right to prosecute the cases

simply because of the ineptitude or nonchalance of the Ombudsman:5pecial 'rosecutor/ 4he

ourt is wont to stress that the 5tate, through the 5andiganbayan and the Ombudsman:5pecial

'rosecutor, has the duty of insuring that the criminal "ustice system is consistent with due process

and the constitutional rights of the accused/

4here can be no denying the fact that the petitioners, as well as the other accused, was

pre"udiced by the delay in the reinvestigation of the cases and the submission by the

Ombudsman:5pecial 'rosecutor of his report thereon/ 5o was the 5tate/ 8e repeat -- the cases

involve the so-called ta% credit certificates scam and hundreds of millions of pesos allegedly

perpetrated by government officials in connivance with private individuals/ 8e agree with the

ruling of the 5andiganbayan that before resorting to the e%treme sanction of depriving the

petitioner a chance to prove its case by dismissing the cases, the Ombudsman:5pecial

'rosecutor should be ordered by the 5andiganbayan under pain of contempt, to e%plain the delay

in the submission of his report on his reinvestigation/

6/ +han, )r/ v/ Ombudsman, A&


42/76

Aovernment 5ervice ;nsurance 5ystem #A5;5$/ NC 4herefore, it became a government-owned orcontrolled corporation #AO $ as enunciated in ( im)o v. *anodbayan. NB

On the second argument, the Deputy Ombudsman held that petitioners were publicofficers within the definition of & .19, 5ection 2 #b$/ Rnder that provision, public officersincluded ?elective, appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in theclassified or unclassified or e%empt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from theAovernment/@;55R*(8:< the Ombudsman had no "urisdiction over ' H since it is a private entity/

3*HD(Ees/ 4he Office of the Ombudsman e%ercises "urisdiction over public officials: employeesof AO s wit+ original c+arters / 4his being so, it can only investigate and prosecute acts or omissions of the officials:employees of government corporations/ 4herefore, although thegovernment later on acquired the controlling interest in ' H, the fact remains that the latter didnot have an ?original charter@ and its officers:employees could not be investigated and:or prosecuted by the Ombudsman/

9/ Ombudsman v/ *standarte, A&


43/76

On !arch 22, 1999, the D* 5-&egion V; received the requisite verification and certification/N 4his case was entitled ? aculty and Department 3eads of the &amon 4orres; of the

onstitution/5ec/ 12/ 4he Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall actpromptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employeesof the Aovernment, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify thecomplainants of the action ta en and the result thereof/

1./ Ombudsman v/ Hucero,


44/76

respondent as counsel of petitioner/ 'etitioner demanded the turn over of the chec fromrespondent, but the latter refused/

On 2C )anuary 199C , petitioner filed with the &4 a motion to direct respondent todeliver to him the chec issued by < 'O O&, corresponding to the damages awarded by theourt of ppeals/ 'etitioner sought to recover the chec in the amount of '1,.=.,6../.. fromrespondent, claiming that respondent had no authority to receive the same as he was already

dismissed by petitioner as his counsel on 21


45/76

!artineI filed a 5pecial ivil ction for ertiorari with a prayer for 4&O and 'reliminary;n"unction before the trial court against 50 and !ayor/

4 - Order of 50 null and void/ 4he proper courts, and not the petitioner, are empowered toremove an elective local official from office, in accordance with 5ection =. of the HocalAovernment ode/

;55R*( 8O< the 5angguniang 0ayan may remove !artineI, an elective local official, from office/3*HD(


46/76

inally, public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline/ public servant muste%hibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity/ 4his yardstic has been imprinted inthe 19 onstitution under 5ection 1 of rticle >;;;, thus( F'ublic office is a public trust/ 'ublicofficers and employment shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty andefficiency and shall remain accountable to the people/F 4his is reiterated more emphatically in the196 onstitution/

5* 4;4H*( 0O&< 5 H, )&/ V/ !O


47/76

5* 4;4H*( H! &;O V/ &*5R5 !


48/76

recording of all matters that transpire during a court proceeding/ 4o tolerate such acts would openthe floodgates to fraud by, or graft and corruption of, "udges and court personnel/

s for respondent &esus, even assuming arg endo that he did not have a hand in thepreparation of the sub"ect 45


49/76

8hether or not cases charged against petitioners are not sub"ect to 5ection 1 of & .19, the nti-Araft and orrupt 'ractices ct, which mandates the preventive suspension of indictedpublic officials/

3*HD(

Ees/ 'etitioners were accused of using barangay property for election campaign purposes andother partisan political activities during their incumbency as barangay officials, in violation of5ection 2=1 #o$ of the Omnibus *lection ode/

4rue, the cases against petitioners involve violations of the *lection odeK however, the chargesare not unidimensional/ *very law must be read together with the provisions of any othercomplementing law, unless both are otherwise irreconcilable/ ;t must be emphasiIed thatpetitioners were incumbent ) blic officers charged with the na t+ori%ed and nlawf l se ofgovernment )ro)erty in their custody, in the pursuit of personal interests/ 4he crime beingimputed to them is a in to that committed by public officers as laid down in the &evised 'enalode/ ertainly, petitioners7 acts constitute fraud against the governmentK thus, the present caseis covered by 5ection 1 of & .19/

4he aforementioned )roviso reinforces the principle that a public office is a public trust/ ;tspurpose is to prevent the accused public officer from hampering his prosecution by intimidating or influencing witnesses, tampering with documentary evidence, or committing further acts ofmalfeasance while in office/'reventive suspension is not a penaltyKpetitioners, whose culpabilityremains to be proven, are still entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence/

5* 4;4H*( &*( 8OH O


50/76

3ence, he prayed that the withheld salaries be given to him and that he be spared from the strictimplementation of the penalty for his absenteeism, promising to be more punctual in reporting forwor in the future/

;55R*(

8hether or not !r/ !acalintalis guilty of malfeasance in office, for unauthoriIed habitualabsenteeism/

3*HD(

Ees/ 0y his habitual absenteeism, !r/ !acalintal has caused inefficiency in the public service/ lthough the ourt understands his plight, it does not e%cuse his total disregard of his officialduties/ 4ime and again, the ourt has pronounced that any act which falls short of the e%actingstandards for public office, especially on the part of those e%pected to preserve the image of the

"udiciary, shall not be countenanced/ 'ublic office is a public trust/ 'ublic officers must at all timebe accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyaltyand efficiency/

!r/ ntonio 0/ !acalintalis guilty of malfeasance in office for habitual absenteeism/ Rnder 5ectionB. of !emorandum ircular


51/76


52/76

On ugust 1 , 199=, at about 9(CB a/ m/, respondent sheriffs arrived at 5itio5agingan, 0arangayDolores, 4aytay, &iIal with about thirty # .$ armed men and more than a hundred civilians/

omplainants brought to the attention of the respondents that not all residents of the sub"ectproperty were defendants in ivil ase


53/76

hereby D;5!;55*5 them from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits e%cept earned leavecredits, if any, with pre"udice to re-employment in any branch or office of the government,including government-owned and controlled corporations/

5* 4;4H*( ! < O;5 V/ H*O!O ! !4)-. -1C92, ug/ 2=, 2..

45(

omplainant alleged that he is a member of the 'hilippine


54/76

Ees/ ;t bears stressing that disciplinary actions against public officers and employees, includingthose in the )udiciary, do not involve purely private or personal matters/ 4heir office is imbuedwith public interest as provided by 5ection 1, rticle >; of the onstitution/

3ence, administrative actions are not made to depend upon the will of every complainant whomay, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act/ 4he settled rule is that the

complainant s withdrawal of his complaint or desistance from pursuing the same, does notnecessarily warrant the dismissal of the administrative case/ ertainly, complainant s desistancecannot divest us of our "urisdiction under 5ection =, rticle V;;; of the onstitution, to investigateand decide complaints against erring employees of the "udiciary/ 5tated otherwise, such unilateralact does not bind us on a matter relating to our disciplinary power/

onsequently, the ourt disregards the complainant s affidavit of desistance, especially becauseon the basis of the facts on record, we can ad"udicate the merits of this case/

4he allegations in the complaint were proven by the evidence on record/ Rndoubtedly,respondent obstructed the normal course of law enforcement/ &espondent s defense that he later surrendered &owena to the '


55/76

by the construction of 0uhangin underpass, thus ta ing him a longer time to travel to his office/3e as ed for consideration and apologiIed for his belated e%planation/

;n the same !emorandum, tty/ andelaria recommended that libang be REPRIMANDED forfirst incursion of habitual tardiness in the first semester of year 2.. / Hi ewise, he too must bereminded to immediately comply with the directives of this Office/

;55R*(

8hether or not Aideon libang, who incurred tardiness during the first semester of 2.. , can berecommended for administrative sanction/

3*HD(

Ees/ 5 !emorandum ircular


56/76

45(

& 9 B was enacted to optimiIe the revenue-generation capability and collection of the 0ureauof ;nternal &evenue #0;&$ and the 0ureau of ustoms #0O $/ 4he law intends to encourage 0;&and 0O officials and employees to e%ceed their revenue targets by providing a system ofrewards and sanctions through the creation of a &ewards and ;ncentives und # und$ and a

&evenue 'erformance *valuation 0oard #0oard$/ ;t covers all officials and employees of the 0;&and the 0O with at least si% months of service, regardless of employment status/

4he und is sourced from the collection of the 0;& and the 0O in e%cess of their revenuetargets for the year, as determined by the Development 0udget and oordinating ommittee#D0 $/ ny incentive or reward is ta en from the fund and allocated to the 0;& and the 0O inproportion to their contribution in the e%cess collection of the targeted amount of ta% revenue/

;55R*(

8hether or not system of rewards and incentives invites corruption and undermines theconstitutionally mandated duty of these officials and employees to serve the people with utmostresponsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency/

3*HD(


57/76


58/76

On !ay 1 , 2..2, herein respondents &icardo gon, &amon Villasanta, *lmer DiIon, 5alvador dul and gnes abian, all members of the 5angguniang 0ayan of 4ag awayan, filed with theOffice of the Ombudsman a complaintagainst 5alumbides and Alenda #hereafter petitioners$, themayor, oleta, )ason and quino/

;55R*(

8hether or not petitioners failed to give attention to a tas e%pected from an employee and canbe punished under the law/

3*HD(

Ees/ 5imple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a tas e%pectedfrom an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference/ ;n the present case,petitioners fell short of the reasonable diligence required of them, for failing to e%ercise due careand prudence in ascertaining the legal requirements and fiscal soundness of the pro"ects beforestamping their imprimatur and giving their advice to their superior/

4he appellate court correctly ruled that as municipal legal officer, petitioner 5alumbides Ffailed touphold the law and provide a sound legal assistance and support to the mayor in carrying out thedelivery of basic services and provisions of adequate facilities when he advised Nthe mayor toproceed with the construction of the sub"ect pro"ects without prior competitive bidding/F s pointedout by the Office of the 5olicitor Aeneral, to absolve 5alumbides is tantamount to allowing withimpunity the giving of erroneous or illegal advice, when by law he is precisely tas ed to advise themayor on Fmatters related to upholding the rule of law/F;ndeed, a legal officer who renders a legalopinion on a course of action without any legal basis becomes no different from a lay person whomay approve the same because it appears "ustified/

s regards petitioner Alenda, the appellate court held that the improper use of government fundsupon the direction of the mayor and prior advice by the municipal legal officer did not relieve herof liability for willingly cooperating rather than registering her written ob"ection as municipalbudget officer/

5imple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense punishable by suspension without payfor one month and one day to si% months/ inding no alleged or established circumstance towarrant the imposition of the ma%imum penalty of si% months, the ourt finds the imposition ofsuspension without pay for three months "ustified/

8hen a public officer ta es an oath of office, he or she binds himself or herself to faithfullyperform the duties of the office and use reasonable s ill and diligence, and to act primarily for thebenefit of the public/ 4hus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to use that prudence,caution, and attention which careful persons use in the management of their affairs/

'ublic service requires integrity and discipline/ or this reason, public servants must e%hibit at all

times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty/ 0y the very nature of their duties andresponsibilities, public officers and employees must faithfully adhere to hold sacred and renderinviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trustK and must at all times beaccountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency/

4he ourt finds the petitioners Vicente5alumbides, )r/ and Alenda raJa, guilty of simple neglectof duty and are to be suspended from office for three # $ months without pay/

Section 12. Prompt Action on Complaints


59/76

4% L#/re. )% Des(ert*, GR N*% 456789, Apr(. 4', '::'F#-ts Petitioner 8ice(President Salvador Laurel was appointed as the head of the )ational Centennial Commission# a body constituted for the preparation of the )ational Centennial celebration in 3==>. He was subse*uently appointed asthe Chairman of


60/76

:ay be erased "he letter reads in pertinent parts that the


61/76

)or is there violation of petitioners right to the e*ual protection of the laws.Petitioners complain that Ein all forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved

parties . . . can only hale respondents via their verified complaints or swornstatements with their identities fully disclosed#E while in proceedings before theOffice of the Ombudsman anonymous letters suffice to start an investigation. +n

the first place# there can be no ob,ection to this procedure because it is providedin the Constitution itself. +n the second place# it is apparent that in permitting thefiling of complaints Ein any form and in a manner#E the framers of theConstitution too into account the well( nown reticence of the people whicheep them from complaining against official wrongdoings. !s this Court hadoccasion to point out# the Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government because those sub,ectto its ,urisdiction are public officials who# through official pressure andinfluence# can *uash# delay or dismiss investigations held against them. On theother hand complainants are more often than not poor and simple fol whocannot afford to hire lawyers.

-inally# it is contended that the issuance of the subpoena ducestecum wouldviolate petitioners right against self(incrimination. +t is enough to state that thedocuments re*uired to be produced in this case are public records and those towhom the subpoena ducestecum is directed are government officials in whose

possession or custody the documents are. :oreover# if# as petitioners claim thedisbursement by the 02# MProviding for the trial by courts(martial of members of the +ntegrated )ational Police and further definingthe ,urisdiction of courts(martial over members of the !rmed -orces of thePhilippinesN

1. !s to the violations of epublic !ct )o. 423=# the petitioner does not fallwithin the Mran N re*uirement stated in Section / of the Sandiganbayan Law#thus# e$clusive ,urisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular courts # as


62/76

amended by .!. )o. >1/=# which states that M+n cases where none of theaccused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary &rade 17 or higher#as prescribed in the said epublic !ct )o. 970># or military and P)P officersmentioned above# e$clusive original ,urisdiction thereof shall be vested in the

proper regional trial court# metropolitan trial court# municipal trial court# and

municipal circuit trial court# as the case may be# pursuant to their respective ,urisdictions as provided in Batas PambansaBlg. 31=# as amended.N

+n this connection# it is the prosecutor# not the Ombudsman# who has theauthority to file the corresponding informationJs against petitioner in theregional trial court. "he Ombudsman e$ercises prosecutorial powers only incases cogni'able by the Sandiganbayan.

+n -ebruary 12# 1222# a motion for clarification which in fact appeared to be a partial motion for reconsideration was filed by the Ombudsman and the SpecialProsecutor filed# which was denied.

"he instant case is a :otion for -urther Clarification filed by Ombudsman!niano !. Desierto of the Court s ruling in its decision dated !ugust =# 3===and resolution dated -ebruary 11# 1222.

ISSUE %hether or not the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman e$tends onlyto cases cogni'able by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has noauthority to prosecute cases falling within the ,urisdiction of regular courts.

RULING )o. "he Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving publicofficers and employees# not only those within the ,urisdiction of theSandiganbayan# but those within the ,urisdiction of the regular courts as well."he power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is

plenary and un*ualified. +t pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal# un,ust# improper or inefficient. "he law does not ma e a distinction between cases cogni'able bythe Sandiganbayan and those cogni'able by regular courts. +t has been held thatthe clause Eany illegal act or omission of any public officialE is broad enough toembrace all inds of malfeasance# misfeasance and non(feasance committed by

public officers and employees during their tenure of office.

"he e$ercise by the Ombudsman of his primary ,urisdiction over casescogni'able by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of hisduty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed by public officersand employees. "he prosecution of offenses committed by public officers andemployees is one of the most important functions of the Ombudsman. +n passing! 9772# the Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power to ma e him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuringaccountability in public office.


63/76

>(23194.

Overall Ombudsman @ose &. Colayco# on @uly 3# 3=>># endorsed the complaint tothe )ational Bureau of +nvestigation 5)B+6. /I On :ay 33# 3=>=# )B+(L


64/76

ISSUE>%hether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion on theground that the preliminary investigation allegedly violated the right of theaccused to due process of law.

HELD +t too the )B+ 1 years to complete its report. "he resolution

recommending the filing of the case against petitioner has to be reviewed. "helength of time it too before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation mayonly be attributed to the adherence of the Ombudsman and )B+ to the rudimentsof fair play.

"he instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is D+S:+SS esolution of theSandiganbayan denying petitioner s M*t(*n t* ?/#s 5is a request to a court torender a previous decision of that court or a lower judicial body null or invalid.

It can arise out of mista es made by any lawyer in a court proceedin! 6Crim.Case )o. 1/179 and its = October 3==> esolution denying reconsideration. "he

petition also prays for the issuance of a writ of preliminary in,unction andJor temporary restraining order to restrain and en,oin public respondents from

proceeding in any manner with Crim. Case )o. 1/179 during the pendency of the petition.

!n anonymous# unverified and unsigned letter(complaint dated 12 )ovember 3==9 allegedly prepared by the Contractors !ssociation of Davao del Sur and the&ood &overnment


65/76


66/76

-lores and "anchanco. +n the same resolution# however# the Special Prosecutor made a sudden turn about as regards o$as# )acpil and Rairan# and ordered their inclusion as accused.

ISSUE %hether or not the inclusion of the petitioners as accused violated

their right to due process.

HELD 5D+S:+SS


67/76

Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases. )either does itinclude orders resolving incidents in preliminary investigations of criminal cases.+n other words# the right to appeal under ule /0 does not apply to orders anddecisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. Such right is granted only fromorders or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. &!HEREFORE, (n )(e *0 t e 0*re3*(n3, t e pet(t(*n (s erebyGRANTED #nd t e #ss#(.ed res*./t(*n d#ted Febr/#ry 46, '::4 *0 t eresp*ndent -*/rt (s ereby REVERSED #nd SET ASIDE%+PPSB fits the bill


68/76

as a government(owned or controlled corporation# and organi'ed and incorporatedunder the Corporation Code as a subsidiary of the Philippine Postal Corporation5PH+LPOS"6. :ore than ==T of the authori'ed capital stoc of PPSB belongs tothe government while the rest is nominally held by its incorporators who areJwerethemselves officers of PH+LPOS". "he creation of PPSB was e$pressly

sanctioned by Section 41 of ! 740/# otherwise nown as the Postal Service !ctof 3==1# for purposes of# among others# Mto encourage and promote the virtue of thrift and the habit of savings among the general public# especially the youth andthe marginali'ed sector in the countryside $$$N and to facilitate postal service byMreceiving collections and ma ing payments# including postal money orders.N 7I

+t is not disputed that the Sandiganbayan has ,urisdiction over presidents# directorsor trustees# or managers of government(owned or controlled corporations withoriginal charters whenever charges of graft and corruption are involved. However#a *uestion arises whether the Sandiganbayan has ,urisdiction over the sameofficers in government(owned or controlled corporations organi'ed and

incorporated under the Corporation Code in view of the delimitation provided for in !rticle +F(B Section 1536 of the 3=>7 Constitution which states that

S7 Constitution which provides that Mthe presentanti(graft court nown as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function ande$ercise its ,urisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.N "his

provision# in effect# retained the ,urisdiction of the anti(graft court as definedunder !rticle F+++# Section 0 of the 3=74 Constitution which mandated itscreation# thus

Sec. 0. "he BatasangPambansa shall create a special court# to be nown asSandiganbayan# which shall have ,urisdiction over criminal and civil casesinvolving graft and corrupt practices and such other offense committed by publicofficers and employees# including those in government(owned or controlledcorporations# in relation to their office as may be determined by law. 5+talics ours6

=% L#@(n# )% O1b/ds1#n 5 4 SCRA 65' '::6FACTS> Petitioner :anuel D. La$ina# Sr. was Barangay Chairman of Brgy.Batasan Hills# Que'on City. On 30 December 3==>#


69/76

On 34 :arch 1222# Arsal brought before the Department of +nterior andLocal &overnment 5D+L&6 a complaint(affidavit charging petitioner with gravemisconduct for the alleged attempted rape. However# the D+L& referred thecomplaint to the Que'on City Council 5MCity CouncilN6for appropriate action.Said complaint was doc eted as !dm. Case )o. 22(34 before the City Council.

"hereafter# on 42 :arch 1222# Arsal filed with the Office of the Ombudsmana similar complaint(affidavit charging petitioner with grave misconduct# doc etedas O:B !D: Case )o. 2(22(2402. >I Petitioner filed his counter(affidavit andattached thereto the affidavits of two witnesses. On 30 !ugust 1222# the!dministrative !d,udication Bureau 5!!B6 of the Office of the Ombudsmane$onerated petitioner from the charge# dismissing the complaint for lac of substantial evidence. =I However# on 1 @uly 1223# upon review# and with theapproval of the Ombudsman# petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct andmeted the penalty of dismissal# with forfeiture of material benefits# per its:emorandum Order.

Petitioner sought reconsideration of the ad,udication# alleging lac of ,urisdictionon the part of the Ombudsman# but the motion was denied.

:eanwhile# Arsal as ed the City Council to waive its ,urisdiction in favor of the Ombudsman."he City Council merely noted Arsal s motion.

On 12 !ugust 1223# the !!B issued an order directing Que'on City :ayor -eliciano . Belmonte# @r. to implement the 1 @uly 1223 :emorandum Order andto submit a compliance report. :ayor Belmonte issued an implementing order#notifying petitioner of his dismissal from service and en,oining him to cease anddesist from performing his duties as barangay captain.

Petitioner sought the review of the Ombudsman s :emorandum Order before the C!# arguing that 5i6 the Office of the Ombudsman did not have ,urisdiction over the administrative complaint 5ii6 Arsal s filing of the sameadministrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman and the City Councilthrough the D+L& warranted the dismissal of both cases and 5iii6 petitioner wasdenied due process in the proceedings before the Ombudsman.

ISSUE>%hether or not the Ombudsman has ,urisdiction over the caseG

HELD> "he C! found the Ombudsman s assumption of ,urisdiction ,ustifiedsince it became aware of the earlier case before the City Council only when

petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration. 3>I +n addition# the C! stated thatthe Ombudsman was ,ustified in not dismissing the administrative cases as a

penalty for forum(shopping because petitioner and Arsal are in pari delicto. 3=I )either was petitioner deprived of administrative due process since he wasallowed to present evidence and said evidence were passed upon by theOmbudsman.


70/76

"he mandate of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring publicofficials# derived from both the Constitution 4>I and the law 4=I gives it

,urisdiction over the complaint against petitioner. "he Constitution has named theOmbudsman and his Deputies as the protectors of the people who shall act

promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government. /2I "o fulfill this mandate# .!. )o. 9772# or theOmbudsman !ct of 3=>=# was enacted# giving the Ombudsman or his Deputies

,urisdiction over complaints on all inds of malfeasance# misfeasance and non(feasance /3I against officers or employees of the government# or any subdivision#agency or instrumentality therefor# including government(owned or controlledcorporations# and the disciplinary authority over all elective and appointiveofficials# e$cept those who may be removed only by impeachment or over members of Congress and the @udiciary. /1I On the other hand# under .!. )o.7392 or the Local &overnment Code# the sangguniangpanlungsod or sangguniangbayan has disciplinary authority over any elective barangay official.

/4I %ithout a doubt# the Office of the Ombudsman has concurrent ,urisdictionwith the Que'on City Council over administrative cases against elective officialssuch as petitioner.

"he Ombudsman was not aware of the pending case before the Que'on CityCouncil when the administrative complaint was filed before it. "here was nomention of such complaint either in the complaint(affidavit or in the counter(affidavit of petitioner. "hus# the Ombudsman# in compliance with its duty to acton all complaints against officers and employees of the government# too cogni'ance of the case# made its investigation# and rendered its decisionaccordingly.

!s e$plained *uite fre*uently# a party may be barred from raising *uestions of ,urisdiction where estoppel by laches has set in.


71/76

,urisdiction. "hus# it has been held that participation in the administrative proceedings without raising any ob,ection thereto bars the parties from raising any ,urisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered against them.

4:%Ge11# P% C#b#.(t )% C*11(ss(*n On A/d(t Re3(*n VII, Gr 49:'78, 4

"#n/#ry ':4'FACTS>"hree employees from the Land "ransportation Office 5L"O6 in @agna#Bohol were found by the Ombudsman to have perpetrated a scheme to defraud thegovernment of proper motor vehicle registration fees. "hey now see in the

present consolidated petitions a ,udgment from this Court annulling the @anuary3># 1229 Decision3 and September 13# 1227 esolution1 of the Court of !ppeals5C!6 which affirmed with modification the Decision4 of the Office of theOmbudsman(8isayas dismissing them from government service.

On September /# 1223# the Philippine Star )ews# a local newspaper inCebu City# reported that employees of the L"O in @agna# Bohol# are shortchangingthe government by tampering with their income reports./ !ccordingly# egional

Director +ldefonso ". Deloria of the Commission on !udit 5CO!6 directed State!uditors "eodocio D. Cabalit and # 3===# 1222 and 1223 was then discovered by the investigators.

+n its position paper#12 the CO! pointed out that the signatures of Cabalit#!pit and Olaivar were indispensable to the issuance of the receipts. !s to Olaivar#the original receipts bear his signature# thereby showing that he approved of theamounts collected for the registration charges. However# when the receipts werereported in the eport of Collections# the data therein were already tamperedreflecting a much lesser amount. By affi$ing his signature on the eport of Collections and thereby attesting that the entries therein were verified by him ascorrect# he allowed the scheme to be perpetrated. !s to Cabalit# the CO! pointedout that as cashier# Cabalit s signature on the receipts signified that she receivedthe registration fees. "he correct amounts should have therefore appeared in theeport of Collections# but as already stated# lesser amounts appeared on theeport of Collections# which she prepares. +n the same manner# !pit# as computer evaluator# also signed the sub,ect receipts allowing the irregularities to be

perpetuated.

ISSUE>%hether or not in the e$ercise of his duties# the Ombudsman may begiven full administrative disciplinary authority over the case at bar.

HELD>"the petitions for review on certiorari are #$%I$#. &he assailed #ecision dated 'anuary 1() 2**+ and ,esolution dated September 21) 2**- of the Court of Appeals in CA /.,. SP. %os. (+20+) (+ 3 and ***3- are

A44I,5$# with 56#I4ICA&I6%. Petitioner 7eonardo /. 6laivar is held administratively liable for #IS86%$S&9 and meted the penalty of dismissal

from the service as well as the accessory penalties inherent to said penalty.:


72/76

1 | C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; # > ! 9 9 . < @ : 9 @ # T 1 : : # C

&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T #:#T= !G 8% :#C!GG#C4R&Case/ uenaseda v. GlavierBB6 &CR 6Q5Gacts/ #n ' B, the 9C< 9urses ssociation )9C< * 0led a case of $raft andcorruption a$ainst Dr. ri$ida uenaseda and several other $overnment o"cials ofthe Department of ealth )D! *. The !mbudsman )then Conrado EasqueF*, orderedthe suspension of uenaseda et al. The suspension was carried on by then D!&ecretary >uan Glavier, bein$ the o"cer in char$e over uenaseda et al. uenasedaet al then 0led with the &upreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition, andmandamus, questionin$ the suspension order. 9C< submitted its Comment on the8etition where they attached a


73/76

&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T #:#T= !G 8% :#C!GG#C4R&Case/ a$ad v. @oFo1 DadoleB5' &CR BQ(Gacts/ !n >uly BB, ' B, criminal and administrative complaints were 0led a$ainst


74/76

&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T #:#T= !G 8% :#C!GG#C4R&Case/ 4storija v. RandaQ B &CR 65BGacts/ 4d$ardo E. 4starija was the arbor


75/76

eld/ The petition is D49#4D.4starija is liable for dishonesty and $rave misconduct4starija did not deny that he went to the D8 # o"ce to collect, and that he actuallyreceived, the money which he demanded from the D8 # as monthly contribution.&ince there was no pendin$ transaction between the 88 and the D8 #, he had noreason to $o to the latterHs o"ce to collect any money. 4ven if he was authoriFed to

assist in the collection of money due the a$ency, he should have issued an o"cialreceipt for the transaction, but he did not do so. The powers of the !mbudsman arenot merely recommendatory #n passin$ Rep. ct 9o. 6 J, the Con$ress deliberatelyendowed the !mbudsman with the power to prosecute oOenses committed by publico"cers and employees to ma7e him a more active and eOective a$ent of the peoplein ensurin$ accountability in public o"ce.


76/76

&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T #:#T= !G 8% :#C!GG#C4R&Case/ !mbudsman v. :ucero5J- &CR 5 (Gacts/ 8etitioner Garida T. :ucero was appointed as Cler7 ## of :T!, was reassi$ned byvirtue of a

article 11 compile

Documents