OMBUDSMAN
V. MADRIAGA (2006)
G.R. No. 164316
September 27, 2006
Petitioner:
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Respondent:
GERTRUDES MADRIAGA and ANA MARIE BERNARDO
Ponente: Carpio
Morales, J.
FACTS
On September 8, 200, the Office of the
Ombudsman San Juan School Club through its president by letter-complaint
charged respondents with the violation of Section 1 Rule of IV and Section 1 of
rule VI of the Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6713 known as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Graft Investigation Officer Helen M. Ascuña
gives her decision and found respondents guilty of violation of Section 5(a) of
Republic Act 6713 which reads:
SEC. 5 Duties of Public Officials and Employees
– In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are
under obligation to:
(a) Act
promptly on letters and requests. – All public officials and employees
shall, within fifteen (15) working
days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of
communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action
taken on the request
Respondents' motion for reconsideration and or
reinvestigation having been denied by Order of July 26, 2001, they elevated the
case to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari.
ISSUES
Whether
or not the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative
sanctions over public officials; and
What
is the nature of the functions of the Ombudsman as envisioned by the
Fundamental Law?
HELD
The Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770
converse that it has full authority on disciplining public officials and
employees counting the power to enforce its judgments and jurisprudence with
the exemption of impeachable officials.
SEC. 15 Powers, Functions and Duties – The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions and duties:
x x x x
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take
appropriate action against a public officer or employee at fault or who
neglects 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 an 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;
x x x x
The challenged Court of Appeals Decision of
May 28, 2004 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SANTIAGO
V. COA (2007)
EN BANC
[G. R. NO.
146824, NOVEMBER 21, 2007]
Ponente: Azcuna,
J.
FACTS
On September 13, 2007, petitioner
Encarnacion filed a motion for clarification of the dispositive portion of the
Decision in this case which was promulgated on June 15, 2006. The said
resolution indicates that the respondent Commission on Audit is authorized to
withhold petitioner’s salary and not to apply it to the shortage for which her
liability is being litigated.
The petitioner Encarnacion resumes
her office as the Municipal Treasurer of Goa, Camarines sur dated February 26,
2007. On August 13, 2007, she requested the respondents and the Mayor of the
said municipality to her representation allowance, additional compensation
allowance, productivity bonus, year-end bonus, clothing allowance and other
benefits, excluding her salary, from October 1998 up to the present based on
the dispositive portion of the Decision.
Through the Regional Cluster
Director, the Commission on Audit response to the contention of the petitioner
implying that the items requested cannot be paid to petitioner since the Court
has already clarified the issue in the decision which states, “…COA can direct
the proper officer to withhold petitioner’s salary and other emoluments. . . .” According to COA, “emoluments” necessarily
include all allowances and any money due petitioner.
Petitioner prays that the dispositive
portion of the Decision be clarified as to whether the emoluments due her as
Municipal Treasurer are excluded from the item that respondents can withhold,
so that in the event that the said emoluments are excluded, the same can be
paid to her.
“Emolument” as stated in the
Philippine Law Dictionary is fees, fixed salary and compensation which the
incumbent of an office is by law entitled to receive because he holds such
office or performed some service required of the occupant thereof.
ISSUES
Whether or not the the salary and other emoluments of petitioner may be withheld by Commission on Audit and applied
to a cash shortage determined merely in an audit examination.
HELD
Under Section 21, Chapter 4, Subtitle B,
Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, the Court held that the propriety of
withholding the petitioner’s salary.
Consequently,
respondent COA is authorized to withhold petitioner’s salary and other
emoluments up to the amount of her alleged shortage, but not to apply the
withheld amount to the alleged shortage for which her liability is still being
litigated.
DEBULGADO V. CSC
(1994) NEPOTISM
EN BANC
[G.R. NO. 111471, SEPTEMBER 26, 1994]
Petitioners: CITY MAYOR ROGELIO R. DEBULGADO AND
VICTORIA T. DEBULGADO
Respondent: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Ponente: FELICIANO, J.
FACTS
Currently holding
the office of Mayor in the city of San Carlos, petitioner Rogelio R. Debulgado
appointed his wife Victoria T. Debulgado on October 1, 1992 as head of the
Office of the General Services of the City Government of San Carlos.
On April 13,
1993, the Civil Service Commission in executing the said report issued
Resolution No. -1427 recalling the approval issued by Director Escobia and
disapproved the promotion of petitioner Victoria to the position of General
Services Officer of San Carlos City upon the ground that that promotion
violated the statutory prohibition against nepotic appointments.
ISSUES
1.
Whether or not a promotional appointment is covered
by the legal prohibition against nepotism and that prohibition only applies to
original appointments to the Civil Service Commission.
2.
Either the Commission had gravely abused its
discretion in recalling and disapproving the promotional appointment of
petitioner Victoria given after the Commission through Director Escobia, had
earlier approved the same appointment without giving an opportunity to
petitioner Victoria to explain her side on the matter.
HELD
1.
Promotional and original appointments are covered by
the legal prohibition against nepotism. In the case at bar, petitioners aver
that the appointment of Victoria is not covered by the legal prohibition of
nepotism since it is only promotional and not an original appointment. That only
original appointment is subject to stipulation by the Civil Service Commission.
The said provision does not classify it’s distinction as of legal
prohibitions in nepotism. It only states the difference between temporary and
permanent appointment provided that the said appointee is qualified and does
not violate the eligibility requirements of the said position. Consequently,
the appointment of petitioner Victoria even though as detailed as promotional
is still covered for legal prohibition of nepotism given that the said
appointment is a vacant position in the career service.
The appointment of petitioner
Victoria in 1961 does not apply nepotism because at the time she was married
she was already in the Government service. Section 59 itself states, in the 4th
paragraph thereof, that the prohibition against nepotism is
not
“applicable to the case of a member of any family who, after his or
her appointment to any position in any office or bureau, contracts
marriage with someone in the same office or bureau, in which event the
employment or retention therein of both husband and wife may be allowed.”
Whereas her appointment as the as head of the Office of the General
Services can be doubted since at the time of her promotion she is already
married to petitioner Rogelio. It is very difficult to comprehend the
prohibition in nepotism with regards to consanguinity contra faithful service
as to the case of Victoria where she is an employee for thirty two (32) years
and married to Rogelio at the time of the appointment.
Section 59 indemnifies the objectivity of the appointing or recommending
official that there would no preferentialism to any appointees. Dura lex, sed
lex.
2.
The Commission by approving or disapproving any appointments
shall only initiate an investigation whether the appointee possesses all the
minimum qualifications and no disqualifications. Petitioner Victoria as one of
the appointee has been investigated and shows that she is related and married
to petitioner Mayor Rogelio. And that, being one of the disqualification she is
being removed and disapproved in her office. The action made by the Commission
is based and implemented by Section 59, Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
Petitioner Victoria’s promotion of the statutory provision that Section 9 of
Rule V of the Omnibus Implementing Regulations that an appointment accepted by the
appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and shall
remain in force and effect until disapproved by the Commission. However, an appointment may be void from
the beginning due to fraud on the part of the appointee or because it was issued in
violation of law as to the case of Victoria where in it violates the
prohibition of nepotism.
The Petition
for Certiorari must be DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
DAVID
V. ARROYO (2006)
EN BANC
[G.R. NO. 171396, May 03, 2006]
PETITIONER:
Prof. Randolf S. David, Lorenzo Tañada III, Ronald
Llamas, H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Joel Ruiz Butuyan, Roger R. Rayel, Gary S,
Mallari, Romel Regalado Bagares, Christopher F.C. Bolastig
RESPONDENTS:
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, as President and
Commander-in-Chief, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Hon. Avelino Cruz II,
secretary of National Defense, General Generoso Senga, Chief of Staff, Armed
Forces of the Philippines, Director General Arturo Lomibao, Chief, Philippine
National Police
FACTS
This seven
petition for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing this
Proclamation No. 1017 (Presidential Proclamation 1017) and General Order No. 5,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioners contend that the respondent officials are trampling upon the very
freedom guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Hence such issuances are
void for being unconstitutional.
ISSUE
Do the
petitioners have legal standing?
HELD
Yes. The Supreme
Court ruled that all petitioners in this case have locus standi. The issue of
locus standi is corollary to the bigger question of the proper exercise of
judicial power. This is the underlying legal tenet of the “liberality doctrine”
on legal standing. The question of the validity of Presidential Proclamation
1017 and General Order No. 5 is of paramount importance to the Filipino people
and is very critical matter. The petition thus calls for the application of the
“transcendental importance doctrine”, a relaxation of the standing requirements
for the petitioner in the Presidential Proclamation 1017 case.
ESTRADA
V. ARROYO (2001)
EN
BANC
[G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 02, 2001]
PETITONER:
Joseph E. Estrada
RESPONDENT:
Aniano Desierto, in his capacity as Ombudsman, Ramon
Gonzales, Volunteers against Crime and Corruption, Graft Free Philippines
Foundation, Inc., Leonardo de Vera, Dennis Funa, Romeo Capulong and Ernesto,
Jr.
G.R. No. 146738
PETITONER: Joseph E. Estrada
G.R. No. 146738
PETITONER: Joseph E. Estrada
RESPONDENT: Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo
FACTS
Then President Estrada alleges that he is President
on leave and respondent Gloria claims she is the President.
Petitioner prays for judgment confirming him to be
lawful President of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge duties of
his office and declare respondent Gloria president in acting capacity only
after transmitting a declaration to the Congress of his inability to exercise
presidential powers and duties.
ISSUE
Was Estrada’s claim of temporary disability, correct
and tenable?
HELD
No. The court rules that Joseph Estrada is not a
president on leave and his claim of temporary disability untenable. Although is
maintained that he did not write a formal letter of resignation before he
evacuated Malacañang, his acts and omissions prove his intent to relinquish the
position of the President of the Philippines.
LAMBINO
V. COMELEC (2006)
EN BANC
[G.R. NO. 174153, October 25, 2006]
PETITONERS:
Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado, together
with 6, 327, 952 Registered Voters
RESPONDENT:
The Commission on Elections
FACTS
Petitioner filed
a petition with the Commission on Election to hold a plebiscite that will
ratify theoir initiative petition under Republic Act 6735. The Lambino group
alleged that their petition had the support of 6, 327, 952 individuals
constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each legislative
district represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. The Lambino group
also claims that the Commission on Election registrars had verified the signatures
of the 6.3 million individuals.
ISSUE
Was Lambino
groups’ initiative for amendments or revisions of the Constitution? Did the
Lambino group comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a people’s initiative? Is there a need to revisit Santiago Vs
Commission on Election?
RULING
Under both the qualitative and quantitative
tests, the Lambino groups’ initiative is a revision and not merely an
amendment. Quantitatively, the proposed changes overhaul two Articles VI and
VII. Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic form of
government, from presidential to parliamentary; from bicameral to unicameral.
The proposed initiative failed to comply
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Very little copies, if any of
the amended petition were circulated during the signature gathering period.
There is no need to visit the court ruling
in Santiago even if Republic Act 6735 was valid. The present petition is
invalid as it violates Section 2 Article XVII even before complying with
Republic Act 6735.
NAC V. COA (2004)
EN BANC
[G. R. No.
156982, September 08, 2004]
PETITIONER: National Amnesty Commission
RESPONDENTS: Commission on Audit, Juanito G. Espino, Director IV, NCR, Commission on
Audit, and Ernesto C. Eulalia, Resident Auditor, National Amnesty Commission
PONENTE: Corona, J.
FACTS
On March 14, 2003, the National Amnesty
Commission filed a petition contending that the Commission on Audit Committed a
grave abuse of discretion in implementing Commission on Audit Memo No. 97-038
disallowing the payment of honoraria to the representatives of ex-officio
members. On the ground that ex officio members are allowed to designated
representatives and are allowed per diem, allowances, bonuses, and other
benefits, it should follow that the representatives may be entitled to
honoraria.
ISSUE
Are assistant secretaries covered by the
Constitutional provision imposed under Section 13, Article VII?
HELD
Yes, the court disagrees with the National
Amnesty Commission’s contention that the representatives are de facto officers
because they are not appointed and merely designated as much. Furthermore, they
were not appointed and merely designated as such. In addition, they cannot
receive something their own principals are entitled to.
OMBUDSMAN
V. SANTIAGO (2007)
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 161098 September 13, 2007
PETITIONER: Office of the Ombudsman
RESPONDENT: Celso Santiago CELSO SANTIAGO
PONENTE: Sandoval-Guitierrez,
J.
FACTS
On October 3, 2000, Rebecca B. Pangiliban,
Mario B. Martin, Rolando H. Lopez and Alfredo M. Escaño Sr., et al, filed an
administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Barangay
Chairman Celso Santiago.
The Office of the Ombudsman declared
respondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service and dismissed him from the service on May 22,
2001.
Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration and an urgent motion to hold in abeyance the implementation of
the Decision, but both motions were denied by the Office of the Ombudsman in an
Order dated July 24, 2001.
Thus, respondent filed with the Court of
Appeals a "Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandatory
Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order."
Apparently, the Court of Appeals considered this action a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Ombudsman has the direct
authority to dismiss the petitioner from the government service, more
particularly from his elective position of Barangay Captain.
HELD
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, we hold that under Republic Act
No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power
to directly remove from government service an earring public official other
than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.
The petition is grant and reversed the
Decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Decision dated May 22,
2001 of the Office of the Ombudsman is AFFIRMED.
OMBUDSMAN
VS ARMILLA
GR No. 160675, June 16, 2006
PETITIONER: Office of the Ombudsman
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Divison) and Nicomedes Armilla, dela Batasin-in,
James Fuentes, Oscar Gador, Santos Guigayima, Jr., Clarito Miñoza, Ernesto
Naraja, Nelson Obeso, Senen Seriño, and Martin Yase
FACTS
Joan and Thomas Corominas and Maria
Constancia Corominas-Lim filed with the office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Ombudsman Visayas a criminal complaint against eleven employees of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Regional Office No. VII
of Banilad, Mandaue City for violation of Article 281 of the Revised Penal
Code. It was alleged that the DENR employees conspired to enter a parcel of
land owned by the Corominas family without their approval despite the “No
Trespassing” sign affixed to the Perimeter fence enclosing the said property.
ISSUE
Viewed against Section 13(3), Article XI of
the Constitution is the Ombudsman limited only with the power to recommend, but
not to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or
persecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault?
HELD
No. The court rejected the argument that
the power of the Office of the Ombudsman is only advisory or recommendatory in
nature. It cautions against the literal interpretation of Section 13(3) of
Article XI of the Constitution. The said provision, construed together with the
pertinent provisions in Republic Act 6770, is not only advisory in nature but
is actually mandatory within the bounds of the law.
In the case at bar, the court upholds the
Office of the Ombudsman power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to
be at fault, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. The
exercise of such power is well founded in the Constitution and Republic Act
6770.
OMBUDSMAN VS MOJICA
GR
No. 146486, March 4, 2005
FACTS
Arturo Mojica, Deputy Ombudsman of Visayas
was investigated from the averment of two (2) officials and employee on the
basis of committed sexual harassment, mulcting money from confidential
employees and oppression against all employees. The recommendation was denied
by the Ombudsman following the established stand that the deputy Ombudsman and
special prosecutor cannot be impeached.
ISSUE
Under Section 2, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution, is the Deputy Ombudsman an impeachable officer?
HELD
No. the Deputy Ombudsman is not an
impeachable officer. The court has likewise taken into account the commentaries
of the leading legal luminaries on the Constitution as to their opinion on
whether or not the Deputy Ombudsman is impeachable. All of them agree in unison
that the impeachable officers enumerated in Section 2, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution is exclusive. In their belief, only the Ombudsman, not his
deputies, is impeachable. The impeachable officers are the President of the
Philippines, the Vice-President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members
of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman.
No comments:
Post a Comment