OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: On 29 December 1999, twenty- two officials and employees of the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, led by its two directors, filed a
complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman requesting an investigation on the
basis of allegations that then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, herein private
respondent 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 amount
was due for release/ 1act-finding investigation was conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman and the report was referred by the Ombudsman to a constituted
2ommittee of 'eers which initially recommended that the investigation be
converted into one solely for purposes of impeachment/ 3owever, this
recommendation was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman and following the
stand of the Office of the Ombudsman that the Deputy Ombudsmen and 4he
5pecial 'rosecutor are not removable through impeachment/
On 16 December 2..., despite the e%piration of private respondent !o"ica7s term
of office, the 2ourt of ppeals nevertheless rendered the assailed Decision on
the grounds of public interest/ 2 ruled that the Deputy Ombudsman is an
impeachable officer/ 4hus, O!07s appeal/
ISSUE:
1/ 8hether or not the Ombudsman9s Deputies are impeachable
2/ 8hether or not the Deputy Ombudsman may be held criminally and:or
administratively liable
HELD: Order of the 2 is &*V*&5*D and 5*4 5;D*/ 4he complaints in
2riminal 2ase <o/ O!0-.-..-.=1= and dministrative 2ase <o/ O!0-D!-.-
..-.,1= are &*;<544*D and the Office of the Ombudsman is ordered to
proceed with the investigation relative to the above cases/ Ombudsman9s
Deputies <ot ;mpeachable/ 4he Deputy Ombudsman is not an impeachable
officer/ 5ec/ 2, rticle >; of the 196- 2onstitution states that ?4he 'resident, the
Vice- 'resident, the members of the 5upreme 2ourt, the members of the
2onstitutional 2ommissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from office,
on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the 2onstitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public
trust/ ll other public officers and employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment@/
COA vs CA
FACTS:
&espondent Aovernment 5ervice ;nsurance 5ystem #A5;5$ filed a 'etition for 'rohibition with
the 2 dated 16 )uly 2..B against petitioner 5pecial udit 4eam #54$ of the 2ommission on
udit #2O$ with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order #4&O$, a
writ of preliminary prohibitory in"unction, and a writ of prohibition/ 5ubsequently, A5;5 also
submitted a !anifestation and !otion dated 21 )uly 2..B detailing the urgency of restraining
the 54/ 4he 2 issued a &esolution on 22 )uly 2..B ,directing petitioner 54 to submit the
latter9s comment, to be treated as an
answer/ dditionally, the 2 granted the prayer of A5;5 for the issuance of a 4&O effective
si%ty #=.$ days from notice / fter requiring the submission of memoranda, 2 issued the
assailed &esolution dated 2, 5eptember 2..B in 2-A/&/ 5' <o/ 9.C6C, granting the prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary in"unction upon the posting of an in"unction bond/ 4he
Office of the 5olicitor Aeneral #O5A$ filed a !otion for &econsideration #!&$ and a 2omment
on the petition dated 1.October 2..B, after it was notified of the case, as the 54 had been
represented in the interim by one of the team members instead of the O5A/ 4he !&
was denied through a &esolution of the 2 on 9 ugust 2..=/4he present 'etition seeDs to
nullify both the 2, 5eptember 2..B and the 9ugust 2..= 2 &esolutions and to prohibit the
2 from proceeding to decide the case/
ISSUES:
8hether or not prohibition is the correct remedy/

HELD:
'&O3;0;4;O< ;5 <O4 43* 2O&&*24 &*!*DE/ 4here is an appeal or a plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy available/ rule of thumb for every petition brought under &ule =B is the
unavailability of an appeal or any
Fplain, speedy, and adequate remedy/@ 2ertiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus are extraordinary remedies that historically require extraordinary
facts to be shown in order to correct errors of jurisdiction. The law also dictates
the necessary steps before an extraordinary remedy may be issued. To be sure, the
availability of other remedies does not always lend itself to the impropriety of a Rule
65 petition.
OMB vs Santiago
FACTS: On )uly 2-, 2..., the 2ity of !anila, through the 2ity 0udget Office,
released a calamity fund for 0arangay 16,, Gone 1=, same city, in the amount
of 'CC,.B,/../ 4his was received by 0arangay 2hairman 2elso 5antiago,
respondent herein/
On October ,, 2..., &ebecca 0/ 'angilinan, !ario 0/ !artin, &olando 3/ HopeI
and lfredo !/ *scaJo, 5r/, all barangay kagawad of 0arangay 16,, filed with the
Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner, an administrative complaint for technical
malversation, violation of the nti-Araft and 2orrupt 'ractices ct, dishonesty,
grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a public officer against
respondent, docDeted as O!0-D!-.-..-.626/
4he complaint alleges that #a$ respondent failed to utiliIe the calamity fund for
the purpose for which it was allocatedK #b$ he leased a portion of the barangay
sidewalD to mity 1ood 2orporation without the conformity of the
barangay kagawadK #c$ mity 1ood 2orporation issued checDs payable to
respondent, not in the name of the 0arangayK #d$ he did not open any banD
account for and in the name of 0arangay 16,, Gone 1=K and #e$ he collected fees
for the use of the barangay chapel without remitting any single centavo to the
barangay treasurer/
&espondent filed a motion to dismiss the administrative complaint denying all the
charges and contending that the complaint was filed to harass him/
;n a Decision dated !ay 22, 2..1, the Office of the Ombudsman declared
respondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct pre"udicial to the
best interest of the service and dismissed him from the service, thus(
ISSUE: whether the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss erring government
officials or employees/
FACTS: 5ection 1,#,$, rticle >; of the 196- 2onstitution provides(
Section 13/ 4he Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties(
#,$ Direct the officer concerned to taDe appropriate action against a public official
or 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 was
given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also
effective/ 4hus, we hold that under &epublic ct <o/ =--. and the 196-
2onstitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove
from government service an erring public official other than a member of
2ongress and the )udiciary/ #*mphasis supplied$/
Govenciong vs OMB

FACTS: During the period material, Aobenciong held the position of
dministrative Officer ;V in *astern Visayas &egional !edical 2enter #*V&!2$,
a public hospital in4acloban 2ity/ On December ,, 199=, the appropriate *V&!2
office issued &equisition and ;ssue Voucher <o/ #&;V$ *O-1-9= for one unit
hemoanalyIer #also called particle counter$, among other items/ On its face, &;V
*O-1-9= carried, for the hemoanalyIer, the specifications ?electric 22.V, B. feed
shelves capacity@ with a handwritten unit price quotation of 'h' 1,19B,996/ fter
public bidding where lveI 2ommercial, ;nc/ #lveI$ emerged as the best bidder,
'urchase Order <o/ #'O$ *O-B-9= dated December 9, 199= was issued covering
two units of nebuliIer and one unit particle counter with specifications ?2,
'arameters, Aenius, ;taly, electric 22.V, fully automated@ at the unit price as
aforestated/
On December 2=, 199=, Disbursement Voucher <o/ #DV$ 1.1-9=12-196=, for
'h' 1,1=1,61-/,B, net of creditable V4, was prepared/ Aobenciong, among
others, signed the voucher to attest that the e%pense covered thereby was
necessary, lawful, and incurred under his direct supervision/ ppended to DV
1.1-9=12-196= were documents adverted to earlier, such as 5ales ;nvoice <o/
.-6=, the 2ertification of cceptance, the 2O ;nspection &eport, 'O *O-B-9=,
and &;V *O-1-9=/
On ugust 2C, 1996, the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas, upon dela 'eJa9s motion,
issued an Order, placing all, e%cept one, of the respondents in O!0-V;5-D!-
9--.,-. under preventive suspension and directed the proper DO3 officer to
immediately implement the Order/

ISSUE: 8hether or not the provisionary orders of the Ombudsman immediately
e%ecutory/
HELD: s Aobenciong argues, his timely filing of a motion for reconsideration of
the sub"ect preventive suspension order stripped such order of its otherwise
quality of immediacy/ 5ec/ 2- of & =--. provides for the immediate e%ecution
of provisionary orders of the Ombudsman, 5ec/ 6, &ule ;;; of the Ombudsman
&ules of 'rocedure, which is purportedly derived from said 5ec/ 2-, intentionally
omitted the matter of immediate e%ecution/ 'ushing the point, Aobenciong would
then argue that this omission conte%tually worDed to repeal part of said 5ec/ 2-/
4o Aobenciong, the repeal is within the Ombudsman9s power to effect under the
last paragraph of 5ec/ 2-, & =--./

5ec/ 2-/ Effectivity and Finality of Decisions/Lll
provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are
immediately effective and e%ecutory/

motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or
decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five
#B$ days after receipt of written notice and shall be entertained only
on any of the following grounds(

#1$ <ew evidence has been discovered which materially
affects the order, directive or decisionK

#2$ *rrors of law or irregularities have been committed
pre"udicial to the interest of the movants/ 4he motion for
reconsideration shall be resolved within three #,$ days from filingK
Provided, 4hat only one motion for reconsideration shall be
entertained/
Mao!o"sa#ic vs Co#e
FACTS: 'etitioner &omulo )/ !arohomsalic was employed as 5pecial Hand
;nvestigator ; of the 'rovincial *nvironment and <atural &esources Office of the
Department of *nvironment and <atural &esources #'*<&O-D*<&$ in
+oronadal 2ity/
&espondent &eynaldo D/ 2ole had a pending land dispute case in the '*<&O-
D*<& in +oronadal 2ity/ 5ometime in 1ebruary 2..1, he went to said office to
inquire on the status of his case/ 3e met !arohomsalic and asDed him for
assistance as he was not from +oronadal but from Aeneral 5antos 2ity/
4he allegations of fact diverge at this point/ !arohomsalic, on one hand,
asserted that on !arch 6, 2..1, 2ole gave him cash purportedly to cover the
e%penses for photocopying the documents needed in the case/ On the other
hand, 2ole claimed #and the Ombudsman affirmed$ that !arohomsalic
demanded '1B,... to secure the reversal of the '*<&O-D*<& decision against
him #2ole$/ 2ole sought the assistance of the <ational 0ureau of ;nvestigation to
entrap !arohomsalic/ On !arch 6, 2..1, !arohomsalic was caught in flagrante
delicto receiving bribe money of'2,-.. from 2ole/
n administrative complaint for grave misconduct was filed against !arohomsalic
in the Office of the Ombudsman-!indanao/ fter evaluating the respective
allegations of the parties, the Ombudsman found !arohomsalic guilty and
dismissed him from the service/ n order dated pril 26, 2..C for the immediate
implementation of !arohomsalic7s dismissal was issued/
ISSUE: 8hether or not 2 acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lacD or e%cess of "urisdiction when it dismissed his petition for review on technical
grounds/
HELD: 4here was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the 2/
!arohomsalic considers as grave abuse of discretion the 27s dismissal of his
petition on technical grounds, namely, the absence of a written e%planation as to
why his petition was filed via registered mail instead of personally, and improper
verification/ 3e argues that the 2 acted with such grave abuse of discretion
because, by dismissing his petition, the Ombudsman7s authority to dismiss him
and the Ombudsman7s finding of grave misconduct on his part were upheld/
Arave abuse of discretion is a capricious and whimsical e%ercise of "udgment
that is equivalent to lacD of "urisdiction/ ;t must be shown that the discretion was
e%ercised arbitrarily or despotically/
tribunal, board or officer is said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion
when it e%ercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion or a virtual refusal to perform the duty en"oined or to act in
contemplation of law/
0ased on the foregoing, the 2 did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it
dismissed !arohomsalic7s petition/
OMB vs Lison$a
FACTS: dministrative charges for dishonesty and grave misconduct were filed
by complainant &enato 5/ !uJoI, !ayor of the !unicipality of Ha
'aI, gusan del 5ur, before the O!0 against therein respondents !ilagros
/ OrlandeI, &ey 2/ 4orralba, and 4omas 0/ AomeI, docDeted as O!0-!--.2-
21B-3/ 2omplainant alleged that on B December 2..., the !unicipality of Ha
'aI, gusan del 5ur, paid to &onwood 2onstruction 5upply the amount
of ',..,.../.. as payment for the delivery of 2,C.. bags of 'ortland cement
intended to be used for the concreting of !orgadeI 5treet #'oblacion-3ospital
&oad 5ection$/ 5he declared in her counter-affidavit that receiving supplies was
not part of her duties and functions but somehow her name was included in the
2ertificate of ;nspection form as one of the signatories therein/
On ,. )anuary 2..,, 2ampos, the representative from the !unicipal 4reasury
whose signature similarly appears on the 2ertificate of ;nspection, filed her
counter-affidavit and corroborated the earlier statement of her co-
respondent 4orralba that there was actual delivery of 2,C.. bags of 'ortland
cement at the !unicipal gym of Ha 'aI/
&espondents filed a !otion for &econsideration which the O!0 denied in its
Order dated 2C )uly 2..,/ !'DO Hisondra and 5ergio filed a 'etition for &eview
on Certiorari before the 2ourt of ppeals/

ISSUE: 8hether or not the 3onorable 2ourt of ppeals committed grave
abuse of discretion tantamount to e%cess or lacD of "urisdiction/
HELD: 4he O!0 find merit in the 'etition and rule to grant the writ
of certiorari/O!09s postulation may be summariIed into whether or
not the 2ourt of ppeals correctly held that O!0 has no power to
impose penalty on public officers/
4he O!0 is a constitutionally created office/ 4he mandate of the O!0 is
e%pressed in 5ection 12, rticle >; of the 2onstitution(

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 any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taDen and
the result thereof/

Mio vs A%&gan

FACTS: On October 16, 1996, around -(.. p/m/ )erry 4an parDed his
!itsubishi H-,.. Van, with !otor <o/ CDB=-012.-, 2hassis <o/
HO=98MG)H and 'late <o/ 43* BC1, registered in his name under
2ertificate of &egistration N#2&$O <o/ 29,=-,=., at Don )ose vila 5t/,
2ebu 2ity, "ust at the bacD of 2ebu 2ity Doctor7s 3ospital /8hen he went
bacD, he could no longer find his vehicle/
On 19 October 1996, )erry 4an reported the matter to the 'hilippine
<ational 'olice, 4raffic !anagement Office N#'<'-4!O$O headed by
5enior ;nspector Venacio 2amarillo Habiano, )r/ 3e then posted a claim
with the 'hilippine 1irst ;nsurance 2o/, ;nc/#';2;$ being the vehicle7s
insurer/ 3e submitted to the company a certificate of non-recovery issued
by the '<'-4!O duly signed by Habiano, which stated thatPthe '<'-
4raffic !anagement Aroup had not yet recovered his vehicle/ ';2; paid
the claim of )erry 4an and was subrogated to all the rights of the latter/
4he 'hilippine 1irst ;nsurance 2o/, ;nc/ later filed a complaint in the <ational
0ureau of ;nvestigation #<0;$ against respondent bugan, Venacio 2amarillo
Habiano, )r/ #Habiano, )r/$ and 2ristina Habiano for carnapping, falsification of
public:official document, and violation of & ,.19 and & =-1,/ fter the <0;
conducted its investigation, it recommended the prosecution, to petitioner Deputy
Ombudsman for Visayas 'rimo 2/ !iro #!iro$, of respondent bugan and
Habiano, )r/, for falsification of public:official document and violation of & =-1,/
&espondent filed a motion for reconsideration #!&$ but it was denied by
petitioners/ &espondent went up to the 2 via &ule C, assailing petitioners7
decision/ ;n its assailed decision of December 9, 2..C, the 2 affirmed the
findings of petitioners but held that, instead of directly imposing the penalty on
respondent, they should have recommended it instead to his superior official/

ISSUE: 8hether or not the Office of the Ombudsman was
supposedly powerless to impose sanctions in administrative cases/
HELD: C ruled that the power of the !"ce of the !mbudsman to impose
administrative penalty was merely an obiter dictum and could not be cited as
a doctrinal declaration of this Court. #n that case, The point of contention is
the bindin$ power of any decision or order that emanates from the !"ce of
the !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 following
powers, functions, and duties(
#,$ Direct the officer concerned to taDe appropriate action against a
public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith/
Cesa vs OMB
FACTS: On !arch B, 1996, government auditors conducted a surprise
audit at the 2ash Division of 2ebu 2ity 3all/ Aetting wind of the surprise
audit, paymaster &osalina A/0adana hurriedly left her office and, since
then, never returned/ 1rom 5eptember 2., 199B to !arch B,
1996, 0adana had cash advances of more than '21= million fraudulently
incurred by presenting cash items such as payrolls and vouchers already
previously credited to her account to cover the balance or shortage during
cash counts/ 3er unliquidated cash advances were more than '16
million/ 4he government auditors discovered that 0adana had an average
monthly cash advance of '-/= million in e%cess of her monthly payroll
of 'B/- million, and was granted more advances without liquidating
previous advances/
On December 2., 2..C, the 2ourt of ppeals upheld the findings and
conclusions of the Ombudsman, but declared that the imposable penalties
therein were merely recommendatory and should be directed to the proper officer
or authority concerned for enforcement/ 4he 2ourt of ppeals
dismissed 2esa9s gripe that there was lacD of due process as the Ombudsman
can undertaDe criminal or administrative investigations sans any complaint/ ;t
ruled that procedural infirmities, if any, were cured when petitioner was present
during the preliminary conference, submitted his counter-affidavit and
supplemental counter-affidavit, actively participated in the proceedings by cross-
e%amining witnesses, and filed a motion for reconsideration/ ;t
found 2esa negligent for tolerating the illegal practices on cash advances
because he approved the paymasters9 requests for cash advances based on
pieces of paper without any particulars and without diligent supervision over
them/ 4he 2ourt of ppeals ruled that the Arias ruling where this 2ourt held that
heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable e%tent on their subordinates, is
inapplicable to this case for it had not been alleged that 2esa conspired
with 0adana/ 8hat was proven was that his negligence in carrying out his duties
as city treasurer contributed to giving 0adana the opportunity to malverse more
than '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 certain
latitude as long as the element of fairness is practiced/ 4here is no denial of due
process if records show that hearings were held with prior notice to adverse
parties/ *ven without notice, there is no denial of procedural due process if the
parties were given the opportunity to be heard/ Due process in administrative
proceedings simply means an opportunity to seeD 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 and
recommendations of the investigating agencyK he is entitled only to a fair
opportunity to be heard and to a decision based on substantial evidence/ <o
more, no less/ ;n fine, 2esa had no right to be notified of the auditing team9s
preliminary report while graft investigators were reviewing it/ 3is contention that
he was required to file a counter-affidavit sans a formal charge against him belies
any claim of denial of due process/
4he appellate court correctly ruled that procedural lapses, if any, were cured
when 2esa participated in the preliminary conference, submitted his counter-
affidavit and supplemental counter-affidavit, actively participated in the
proceedings by cross-e%amining witnesses, and filed a motion for
reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman/
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs MERCEDITAS DE SAHAGUN
FACTS: On <ovember 1-, 1992, the 0ids and wards 2ommittee #02$ of the
;ntramuros dministration, composed of respondent !erceditas de 5ahagun, as
2hairman, with respondent !anuela 4/ 8aquiI and Dominador 2/ 1errer, )r/
#1errer$, as members, submitted a recommendation to 3enson for the approval
of the award of said contract to 0rand sia, Htd/ On the same day, 3enson
approved the recommendation and issued a <otice of ward to 0rand sia, Htd/
On <ovember ,., 199B, 3enson was dismissed from the service by the Office of
the 'resident upon recommendation of the 'A2 which found that the contracts
were entered into without the required public bidding and in violation of 5ection ,
#a$ and #e$ of &epublic ct #&//$ <o/ ,.19, or the nti-Araft and 2orrupt
'ractices ct/
On 5eptember B, 2..., 1act-1inding ;ntelligence 0ureau #11;0$ filed criminal and
administrative charges against respondents, along with 1errer and &ustia, for
violation of 5ection , #a$ and #c$ of &// <o/ ,.19 in relation to 5ection 1 of
*%ecutive Order <o/ ,.2 and grave misconduct, conduct grossly pre"udicial to
the best interest of the service and gross violation of &ules and &egulations
pursuant to the dministrative 2ode of 196-, docDeted as O!0-.-..-1C11 and
O!0-D!-.-..-.-21, respectively/ O!0-.-..-1C11 was dismissed on 1ebruary
2-, 2..2 for lacD of probable cause/ 3owever, then Ombdsman 5imeon V/
!arcelo disapproved the recommendation/ ;n an Order dated !arch 1., 2..,, he
held that there was substantial evidence to hold respondents administratively
liable since the contracts awarded to 0rand sia, Htd/ failed to go through the
required procedure for public bidding under *%ecutive Order <o/ ,.1 dated )uly
2=, 196-/ &espondents and 1errer were found guilty of grave misconduct and
dismissed from service/ &ustia was found guilty of simple misconduct and
suspended for si% months without pay/
On )une 2C, 2..,, Ombdsman !arcelo issued an Order partially granting the
motion for reconsideration/ &espondents and 1errer were found guilty of the
lesser offense of simple misconduct and suspended for si% months without pay/
&ustia7s suspension was reduced to three months/
On pril 26, 2..B, the 2 rendered a Decision setting aside the Orders dated
!arch 1., 2.., and )une 2C, 2.., of the Ombdsman/ 4he 2 held that
respondents may no longer be prosecuted since the complaint was filed more
than seven years after the imputed acts were committed which was beyond the
one year period provided for by 5ection 2. #B$ of &epublic ct #&//$ <o/ =--.,
otherwise Dnown as F4he Ombudsman ct of 1969FK and that the nature of the
function of the Ombdsman was purely recommendatory and it did not have the
power to penaliIe erring government officials and employees/
ISSUE: whether 5ection 2. #B$ of &// <o/ =--. prohibits administrative
investigations in cases filed more than one year after commission
HELD: 4he 2ourt rules in favor of the petitioner/ ;n fine, it is already well-settled
that the Ombdsman!s power as regards the administrative penalty to be
imposed on an erring public officer or employee is not merely recommendatory/
4he Ombdsman has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or
employee, other than a member of 2ongress and the )udiciary, found to be at
fault, within the e%ercise of its administrative disciplinary authority as provided in
the 2onstitution, &// <o/ =--., as well as "urisprudence/ 4his power gives the
said constitutional office teeth to render it not merely functional, but also effective/
4hus, the 2 committed a reversible error in holding that the case had
already prescribed and that the Ombdsman does not have the power to
penaliIe erring government officials and employees/
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 received t&e
corres#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+ rea##ointed
res#ondent as Cor#orate Secretar$+ t&e sa-e #osition s&e le%t and retired %ro- barel$ a $ear earlier. !es#ondent
"as *. $ears old at t&e ti-e o% &er rea##oint-ent.

In its !esolution+ t&e 'oard o% Trustees classi%ied &er
a##oint-ent as 1con%idential in nature and t&e tenure o% o%%ice is at t&e #leasure o% t&e 'oard.1
Petitioner alleges t&at res#ondent2s rea##oint-ent on con%idential status "as -eant to illegall$ e3tend &er service
and circu-vent t&e la"s on co-#ulsor$ retire-ent.

T&is is because under !e#ublic Act 4!.A.5 No. 629)+ or t&e
/overn-ent Service Insurance S$ste- Act o% )997+ t&e co-#ulsor$ retire-ent age %or govern-ent e-#lo$ees is *8
$ears.
Issue:
0&et&er or not t&e Court be bound b$ a classi%ication o% a #osition as con%idential alread$ -ade b$ an agenc$ or
branc& o% govern-ent.
9eld:
Juris#rudence establis&es t&at t&e Court is not bound b$ t&e classi%ication o% #ositions in t&e civil service -ade b$
t&e legislative or e3ecutive branc&es+ or even b$ a constitutional bod$ li:e t&e #etitioner.

T&e Court is e3#ected to
-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$ con%idential
#osition or not+ "it&out being bound b$ #rior classi%ications -ade b$ ot&er bodies.
/ri;o v. CSC
Facts:
Petitioner Si3to <e-aisi# "as t&e %irst a##ointed Provincial Attorne$ o% Iloilo. "&en &e resigned &e reco--ended
t&e elevation o% res#ondent Teoti-o Arandela %ro- Senior =egal (%%icer to Provincial Attorne$. (IC /overnor
=icurgo Tirador decided to a##oint res#ondent Arandela as t&e Provincial Attorne$. !es#ondent Cirilo /elve>on+ on
t&e ot&er &and+ "as #ro-oted %ro- =egal (%%icer II to Senior =egal (%%icer. !es#ondents Teodol%o <ato?on and
Nelson /edus#an "ere a##ointed to t&e #osition o% =egal
(%%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 Februar$ 2+ )966+
&e in%or-ed res#ondent Arandela and all t&e legal o%%icers at t&e Provincial Attorne$2s (%%ice about &is decision to
ter-inate t&eir services. In &is letter+ #etitioner /ri;o -ade -ention o% an article #ertaining to t&e Iloilo o%%ice o%
t&e Provincial Attorne$ "&ic& a##eared in t&e Pana$ Ne"s and "&ic& 1under-ined t&at trust and con%idence1 t&at &e
re#osed on t&e-. Petitioner <e-aisi# "as rea##ointed b$ /overnor /ri;o as t&e Provincial Attorne$+ T&e latter+ on
t&e ot&er &and+ arranged t&e re#lace-ents o% t&e ot&er legal o%%icers. !es#ondent Cirilo /elve>on "as re#laced b$
#etitioner Santos Aguadera+ res#ondent Nelson /edus#an "as re#laced b$ #etitioner @anuel Casu-#ang and
#etitioner @anuel Travi;a too: t&e #lace o% res#ondent Teodol%o <ato?on.
(n @arc& )8+ )966+ #etitioner /overnor /ri;o %or-all$ ter-inated t&e services o% t&e res#ondents &erein on t&e
ground o% loss o% trust and con%idence. T&is action ta:en b$ t&e governor "as a##ealed b$ res#ondents to t&e @erit
S$ste-s Protection 'oard o% t&e Civil Service Co--ission.
(n @arc& 9+ )969+ t&e @erit S$ste-s 'oard issued an (rder declaring t&e res#ondents2 ter-ination illegal and
ordering t&at t&e$ be i--ediatel$ restored to t&eir #ositions "it& bac: salaries and ot&er e-olu-ents due t&e-.
T&is "as a##ealed b$ #etitioner /ri;o to t&e Civil Service Co--ission.
In !esolution No. 69?73* dated (ctober 9+ )969+ t&e Civil Service Co--ission a%%ir-ed t&e (rder o% t&e @erit
S$ste-s Protection 'oard+ and directed t&at t&e res#ondents be restored to t&eir %or-er legal #ositions and be
#aid bac: salaries and ot&er bene%its.
Issue:
whether or not the position of a provincial attorney and those of his legal subordinates are primarily confidential in nature so
that the services of those holding the said items can be terminated upon loss of confidence.
9eld:
In t&e cases o% Cadiente vs. Santos+ and 'esa vs. P&ili##ine National 'an:+ t&e Court ruled t&at t&e #osition o% a cit$
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$ classi%ied t&e #osition
o% #rivate res#ondent Arandela as a career #osition and certi%ied t&e sa-e as #er-anent+ &e is re-ovable onl$ %or
cause+ and t&ere%ore Cadiente is not a##licable. T&e Court %inds t&at #rivate res#ondent Arandela "as not dis-issed
or re-oved %ro- o%%ice "&en &is services "ere ter-inated. 9is ter- -erel$ e3#ired.
T&us+ "it& res#ect to t&e legal assistants or subordinates o% t&e #rovincial attorne$ na-el$+ Cirilo /elve>on+
Teodol%o <ato?on and Nelson /edus#an+ t&e Cadiente and 'esa rulings cannot a##l$. T&e latter &ave been e-#lo$ed
due to t&eir tec&nical Auali%ications. T&eir #ositions are &ig&l$ tec&nical in c&aracter and not con%idential+ so t&e$
are #er-anent e-#lo$ees+ and t&e$ belong to t&e categor$ o% classi%ied e-#lo$ees under t&e Civil Service =a". T&us+
t&e ite-s o% Senior =egal (%%icer and =egal (%%icer II re-ain #er-anent as classi%ied b$ t&e Civil Service
Co--ission. ConseAuentl$+ t&e &olders o% t&e said ite-s+ being #er-anent e-#lo$ees+ enBo$ securit$ o% tenure as
guaranteed under t&e Constitution.
'riones v. (s-e;a
Fact:
An action %or -anda-us "it& da-ages to declare t&e abolition o% t&e #etitionerCs #osition void+ and to order t&e
res#ondent Cit$ @a$or to reinstate t&e- to t&eir %or-er #ositions. (rdinance No. )92 abolis&ed )8 #ositions in t&e
Cit$ @a$orCs o%%ice and )7 #ositions in t&e (%%ice o% t&e @unici#al 'oard "it& an alleged econo-ic and e%%icient
reason %or t&e abolition.
Issue:
0&et&er or not t&e (rdinace No. )92 "as done in bad %ait&+ "it& #ersonal or #olitical #ur#ose and violates t&e la".
9eld:
T&e reason given %or t&e abolition o% t&e #ositions is untrue+ and constitutes a -ere subter%uge %or t&e re-oval
"it&out cause o% t&e said a##ellees+ in violation o% Civil Service tenures as #rovided b$ t&e Constitution. Prior to t&e
abolition o% t&e #ositions+ t&e o%%ice o% t&e Cit$ @a$or no less t&an 38 ne" #ositions calling %or an outla$ o% *6+),,
#esos #er annu-.
A decent res#ect %or t&e Civil Service #rovisions o% our Constitution dictates t&at civil service eligibles+ "&o &ave
rendered long and &onorable services+ s&ould not be sacri%iced in %avor o% non?eligibles given #ositions o% recent
creation+ 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% Internal
!evenue 4'I!5 and t&e 'ureau o% Custo-s 4'(C5. T&e la" intends to encourage 'I! and '(C o%%icials and e-#lo$ees
to e3ceed t&eir revenue targets b$ #roviding a s$ste- o% re"ards and sanctions t&roug& t&e creation o% a !e"ards
and Incentives Fund 4Fund5 and a !evenue Per%or-ance valuation 'oard 4'oard5. It covers all o%%icials and
e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C "it& at least si3 -ont&s o% service+ regardless o% e-#lo$-ent status.
T&e 'oards &as t&e dut$ to 4)5 #rescribe t&e rules and guidelines %or t&e allocation+ distribution and release o% t&e
FundD 425 set criteria and #rocedures %or re-oving %ro- t&e service o%%icials and e-#lo$ees "&ose revenue
collection %alls s&ort o% t&e targetD 435 ter-inate #ersonnel in accordance "it& t&e criteria ado#ted b$ t&e 'oardD
4.5 #rescribe a s$ste- %or #er%or-ance evaluationD 485 #er%or- ot&er %unctions+ including t&e issuance o% rules and
regulations and 4*5 sub-it an annual re#ort to Congress.
7
T&e <(F+ <'@+ N<A+ 'I!+ '(C and t&e Civil Service Co--ission 4CSC5 "ere tas:ed to #ro-ulgate and issue t&e
i-#le-enting rules and regulations o% !A 9338+ to be a##roved b$ a Joint Congressional (versig&t Co--ittee
created %or suc& #ur#ose.
Petitioners+ invo:ing t&eir rig&t as ta3#a$ers %iled t&is #etition c&allenging t&e constitutionalit$ o% !A 9338+ a ta3
re%or- legislation. T&e$ contend t&at+ b$ establis&ing a s$ste- o% re"ards and incentives+ t&e la" 1trans%or-EsF t&e
o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C into -ercenaries and bount$ &unters1 as t&e$ "ill do t&eir best onl$
in consideration o% suc& re"ards. T&us+ t&e s$ste- o% re"ards and incentives invites corru#tion and under-ines t&e
constitutionall$ -andated dut$ o% t&ese o%%icials and e-#lo$ees to serve t&e #eo#le "it& ut-ost res#onsibilit$+
integrit$+ lo$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%%icials and e-#lo$ees
o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C violates t&e constitutional guarantee o% eAual #rotection. T&ere is no valid basis %or
classi%ication or distinction as to "&$ suc& a s$ste- s&ould not a##l$ to o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% all ot&er
govern-ent agencies.
Issue:
0&et&er or not !A 9338 violates securit$ o% tenure o% o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C
9eld:
Clearl$+ !A 9338 in no "a$ violates t&e securit$ o% tenure o% o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C. T&e
guarantee o% securit$ o% tenure onl$ -eans t&at an e-#lo$ee cannot be dis-issed %ro- t&e service %or causes ot&er
t&an t&ose #rovided b$ la" and onl$ a%ter due #rocess is accorded t&e e-#lo$ee. In t&e case o% !A 9338+ it la$s
do"n a reasonable $ardstic: %or re-oval 4"&en t&e revenue collection %alls s&ort o% t&e target b$ at least 7.8G5
"it& due consideration o% all relevant %actors a%%ecting t&e level o% collection. T&is standard is analogous to
ine%%icienc$ and inco-#etence in t&e #er%or-ance o% o%%icial duties+ a ground %or disci#linar$ action under civil
service la"s. T&e action %or re-oval is also subBect to civil service la"s+ rules and regulations and co-#liance "it&
substantive and #rocedural due #rocess.
CSC v. SoBor
FACTS
!es#ondent 9enr$ A SoBor "as a##ointed b$ t&en President Cora>on AAuino as #resident o% Central Visa$as
Pol$tec&nic College 4CVPC5 in <u-aguete cit$ on August )+ )99). 9e "as subseAuentl$ rea##ointed b$ t&e 'oard o%
Trustees "&en t&e la" -andated t&at a '(T be %or-ed to act as t&e governing bod$ in state colleges. (n June 28+
2,,.+ CVPC converted into t&e Negros (riental State Hniversit$ 4N(!SH5+ t&e 'oard o% !egents 4'(!5 succeeded
t&e '(T as its governing bod$. @ean"&ile t&e res#ondent "as c&arged "it& 3 ad-inistrative cases %iled b$ CVPC
%acult$ -e-bers be%ore t&e CSC !egional (%%ice 4CSC?!(5 No. VII in Cebu Cit$ na-el$: 4)5 <is&onest$+ @isconduct+
and Falsi%ication o% (%%icial <ocu-entD 425 <is&onest$+ /rave @isconduct+ and Conduct PreBudicial to t&e 'est
Interest o% t&e ServiceD and 435 Ne#otis-. !es#ondent argued t&at CSC &as no Burisdiction over &i- as #residential
a##ointee. 9e %urt&er argued t&at onl$ t&e '(T &as t&e #o"er to re-ove universit$ o%%icials citing #rovisions o%
!.A. No. 6292. CSC issued a resolution dis-issing res#ondents a##eal and aut&ori>ing t&e regional o%%ice to #roceed
"it& t&e investigation and #reventivel$ sus#ending t&e res#ondent. 0&en t&e CSC denied t&e res#ondentCs -otion
%or reconsideration "it& %inalit$+ res#ondent a##ealed to t&e Court o% A##eals via a #etition %or
#ro&ibition. 9e alleged t&at t&e CSC acted "it&out or in e3cess o% its Burisdiction+ or "it& grave abuse o% discretion
a-ounting to lac: or e3cess o% Burisdiction "&en it issued t&e assailed resolutionsD t&at CSC encroac&ed u#on t&e
acade-ic %reedo- o% CVPCD and t&at t&e #o"er to re-ove+ sus#end+ and disci#line t&e #resident o% CVPC "as
e3clusivel$ lodged in t&e '(T o% CVPC. T&e CA resolved in %avor o% res#ondent. It annulled t&e Auestioned CSC
resolutions and #er-anentl$ enBoined t&e CSC %ro- #roceeding "it& t&e ad-inistrative investigation. 9ence t&is
#etition "as %iled b$ CSC.
ISSHS
0&et&er or not t&e CSC &as Burisdiction in t&e disci#line and re-oval o% state universit$ o%%icials.
!H=IN/
The Constitution $rants to the C&C administration over the entire civil service. s de0ned, the civil service
embraces every branch, a$ency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the $overnment, includin$ every
$overnment1owned or controlled corporation. #t is further classi0ed into career and non1career service
positions. The C&C has also been $ranted by the Constitution and the dministrative Code jurisdiction over
all civil service positions in the $overnment service, whether career or non1career. s provided in Revised
%niform Rules on dministrative Cases in the Civil &ervice &ec. 52 34xcept as otherwise provided by the
Constitution or by law, the Civil &ervice Commission shall have the 0nal authority to pass upon the removal,
separation and suspension of all o"cers and employees in the civil service and upon all matters relatin$ to
the conduct, discipline and e"ciency of such o"cers and employees.5 r$ument of the respondent that
6!R has the sole authority to discipline and remove his o"ce cannot prosper. The power of the 6!R to
discipline o"cials and employees is not exclusive. C&C has concurrent jurisdiction over a president of a
state university. cademic freedom cannot be invo7ed by &ojor as this is not applicable to the present case.
#t cannot be justi0ed that he is within the bounds of academic freedom since administrative complaints 0led
a$ainst him involve violations of civil service rules. 8etition was $ranted by the &upreme Court and reversed
the decision of the Court of ppeals.
PCSO Board of Directors v. Lapid
Facts:
!ecords s&o" t&at t&e #resent case is rooted on t&e S"orn State-ent e3ecuted b$ @r. =olito (. /ue-o+
C&ie% =otter$ (#erations (%%icer+ P&ili##ine C&arit$ S"ee#sta:es (%%ice 4PCS(5 'ataan Provincial <istrict
on June 23+ 2,,8. Said S"orn State-ent docu-ented an incident "&ic& allegedl$ occurred on June )7+ 2,,8+
"&erein res#ondent?a##ellant @arie Jean C. =a#id+ Casual Cler: 4Acting Teller5+ con%ronted+ bad-out&ed and
s&outed invectives at @r. /ue-o+ in t&e #resence o% ot&er e-#lo$ees and #atients see:ing assistance %ro-
t&e PCS(?'ataan Provincial <istrict (%%ice.
/ue-oCs declaration in &is s"orn state-ent "as also docu-ented in t&e @e-orandu- sent b$ t&e %or-er to
Jose%ina Sarsonas+ t&en (IC @anager o% t&e PCS( Nort&ern and Central =u>on <e#art-ent+ dated June 2,+
2,,8. T&e said @e-orandu- in%or-ed Sarsonas o% t&e incident "&ic& occurred in t&e PCS(?'ataan
Provincial <istrict (%%ice on June )7+ 2,,8.
T&e %oregoing incident re#ort "as also signed b$ si3 4*5 e-#lo$ees o% t&e PCS(?'ataan Provincial <istrict
(%%ice+ as "itnesses. T&e in%or-ation contained in t&e Incident !e#ort and S"orn State-ent o% /ue-o "as
also ec&oed in t&e incident re#ort o% Securit$ /uard Ja$son @. nriAue>+ "&o "as assigned to t&e PCS(?
'ataan Provincial <istrict (%%ice at t&e ti-e o% t&e incident.
(n June 2,+ 2,,8+ /ue-o sent a @e-orandu- to res#ondent?a##ellant =a#id+ reAuiring &er to e3#lain in
"riting "it&in sevent$ t"o 4725 &ours "&$ no ad-inistrative c&arges s&ould be %iled against &er as a result o%
t&e June )7+ 2,,8 incident. =a#id "as also %urnis&ed "it& a co#$ o% t&e incident re#ort. (n June 2.+ 2,,8+
res#ondent?a##ellant sub-itted &er re#l$ to /ue-oCs June 2,+ 2,,8 @e-orandu-. In res#ondent?a##ellantCs
re#l$ s&e denied t&e events+ as stated in /ue-oCs incident re#ort+ and gave &er o"n version o% t&e incident.
=a#id also alluded to t&e %iling o% a case against /ue-o "it& t&is Co--ission %or &arass-ent+ insulting
be&avior+ discourtes$ and o##ression.

T&e PCS( =egal <e#art-ent+ t&roug& Investigating (%%icer Att$. Victor @. @anla#a>+ sent a @e-orandu- to
=a#id on June 27+ 2,,8+ as:ing t&e latter to res#ond to t&e A%%idavit?Co-#laint o% /ue-o. !es#ondent?
a##ellant sub-itted &er IAns"er+ "it& Co--ent and @otion and @otion to <is-issC on Jul$ )9+ 2,,8. In &er
Ans"er+ =a#id stated t&at /ue-oCs co-#laint against &er -ust be dis-issed on t&e ground t&at t&e said
co-#laint does not con%or- to t&e essential reAuisites #rescribed b$ Section 6 o% t&e Hni%or- !ules in
Ad-inistrative Cases in t&e Civil Service. S&e also asserted t&at t&e ad-inistrative o%%ense o% I<iscourtes$
o% (%%icial FunctionC does not e3ist under Civil Service !ules.
Issue:
0&et&er or not t&e CSC is correct in ruling instead on t&e atstus o% t&e a##ellantCs casual e-#lo$-ent and not on
t&e issue o% non?observance o% due #rocess in t&e ter-ination o% a##ellantCs services
9eld:
=a#id clai-ed t&at t&e CSC erred in den$ing &er a##eal on t&e ground t&at s&e "as a casual e-#lo$ee "&o "as
J"it&out an$ securit$ o% tenure and -a$ be se#arated %ro- service at an$ ti-e.K S&e argued t&at t&e CSC s&ould
&ave decided &er a##eal on t&e -erits and resolved t&e issue o% "&et&er or not &er ter-ination %ro- service "as
e3ecuted "it& due #rocess. S&e %urt&er averred t&at JNo o%%icer or e-#lo$ee in t&e Civil Service s&all be
sus#ended or dis-issed e3ce#t %or cause as #rovided b$ la" and a%ter due #rocess.K
T&e CA agreed "it& =a#id. T&e CA ruled t&at "&ile it "as #reviousl$ &eld t&at casual e-#lo$ees "ere not #rotected
b$ securit$ o% tenure as t&e$ -a$ be re-oved %ro- t&e service "it& or "it&out cause+ a recent case decided b$ t&e
Court &eld ot&er"ise J%or Ieven a casual or te-#orar$ e-#lo$ee enBo$s securit$ o% tenure and cannot be dis-issed
e3ce#t %or cause enu-erated in Sec. 22+ !ule LIV o% t&e (-nibus Civil Service !ules and !egulations and ot&er
#ertinent la"s.CK Absent+ t&ere%ore+ a #roven cause to dis-iss+ t&e CA &eld t&at =a#id "as dis-issed "it&out cause
as conte-#lated in la".
!egarding t&e Auestion o% Jdue #rocess+K =a#id argued t&at s&e "as denied &er rig&t t&ereto because t&e c&arges
against &er "ere not dul$ #roven. T&e su##osed For-al C&arge "as unsigned and+ "orse+ it "as not served on &er. No
%or-al investigation "as ever conducted on &er case. T&e CA again ruled %or =a#id and &eld t&at s&e "as denied due
#rocess.
CSC v. PA/C(!
Facts:
Ariel !. @arAue> and Ireneo @. Vedillo "ere bot& e-#lo$ed as dealers in t&e ga-e o% Cra#s at t&e P&ili##ine
A-use-ent and /a-ing Cor#oration 4PA/C(!5 at t&e Casino Fili#ino 9eritage.
(n Nove-ber 2*+ 2,,*+ @arAue> and Verdillo alternatel$ -anned Cra#s Table No. 3,+ toget&er "it& Joselito
@aga&is and Virgilio !uanto. At around 2:.* a.-.+ @r. Jo&nn$ C&eng

began #la$ing at Cra#s Table No. 3, "it&
Verdillo as stic:-an and @arAue> as t&e #a$?o%% dealer. 0&ile doing &er rounds+ Acting Pit Su#ervisor ulalia Mang
noticed t&at on several occasions Verdillo -ade a Jgood diceK call even t&oug& not one o% t&e dice %ro- t&e #la$erCs
t&ro" &it t&e tableCs rubber "all. Alar-ed b$ "&at s&e sa"+ Mang re#orted t&e -atter to t&e Casino @anage-ent.
T&erea%ter+ @r. Ariston Tangalin+ t&e Acting Casino S&i%t @anager+ reAuested to revie" t&e Closed Circuit
Television 4CCTV5 %ootage o% t&e incident. A%ter "atc&ing t&e %ootage+ t&e -e-bers o% t&e Casino @anage-ent and
t&e investigators %ro- t&e Cor#orate Investigation Hnit "ere convinced t&at several void t&ro"s "ere declared as
Jgood diceK in Table No. 3, "&ile t&e sa-e "as being -anned b$ @arAue> and Verdillo.
Issue:
"&et&er or not @arAue> and Verdillo are guilt$ o% dis&onest$+ violation o% o%%ice rules and regulations and conduct
#reBudicial to t&e best interest o% t&e service to Busti%$ t&eir dis-issal %ro- service.
9eld:
In t&e #resent case+ t&e CSC %ound t&at a %or-al c&arge "as issued identi%$ing t&e ad-inistrative o%%enses
co--itted b$ @arAue>. A @e-orandu-

dated Nove-ber 26+ 2,,* "as issued c&arging @arAue> o% cons#iring "it&
Verdillo and C&eng in de%rauding PA/C(! during void ga-ing transactions at Table No. 3, on several occasions. 9e
"as t&en reAuired to e3#lain in "riting "it&in 72 &ours %ro- recei#t o% t&e @e-orandu-. !ecords also s&o" t&at &e
#artici#ated in t&e investigation b$ e3ecuting a Sinu-#aang Sala$sa$. T&erea%ter+ t&e '@P o% Casino Fili#ino?
9eritage conducted a %or-al investigation and invited &i- to attend t&e -eeting on <ece-ber )3+ 2,,* to e3#lain
&is side. Clearl$+ @arAue> "as su%%icientl$ in%or-ed o% t&e basis o% t&e c&arge against &i- and "as able to de%end
&i-sel%. 9e "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-inistrative case.
essence o% due #rocess in ad-inistrative #roceedings is t&at a #art$ be a%%orded a reasonable o##ortunit$ to be
&eard and to sub-it an$ evidence &e -a$ &ave in su##ort o% &is de%ense. T&e la" si-#l$ reAuires t&at t&e civil
servant is in%or-ed o% t&e nature and cause o% accusation against &i- in a clear and concise -anner to give t&e
#erson a c&ance to ans"er t&e allegations intelligentl$. videntl$+ PA/C(! substantiall$ co-#lied "it& t&e
reAuire-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#ondent Talens "&o
&eld #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or on t&e ground o% Jlac: and loss o% con%idenceK and a##ointing =i"ag to t&e
#osition.
!A No. 22*, declares t&e #osition o% secretaries to cit$ -a$ors non?co-#etitive and t&is "as inter#reted b$ @a$or
Sa-son as to include t&e #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or.
Issue:
=egalit$ o% Ad-inistrative (rder No. 3
9eld:
Secretar$ to t&e @a$or and Asst. Secretar$ to t&e @a$or are t"o se#arate and distinct #ositions. (ne is o% &ig&er
categor$ and ran: t&an t&e ot&er. T&e %unctions strictl$ attributable to a Jsecretar$+K is not auto-aticall$ vested or
trans%erred to an Jassistant secretar$+K because t&e latter si-#l$ assists or aids t&e %or-er in t&e acco-#lis&-ent
o% &is duties.
Ac&acoso v. @acaraig
Fact:
!A No. *7)8 <eclaring Vacant Jall #ositions o% t&e Co--issioners+ 3ecutive =abor Arbiters and =abor Arbiters o%
t&e #resent National =abor !elations Co--issionsK
T&e old #ositions "ere declared vacant because o% t&e Jneed to #ro%essionali>e t&e &ig&er levels o% o%%icialdo-
invested "it& adBudicator$ #o"ers and %unctions+ and u#grade t&eir Auali%ications+ ran:s and salaries or
e-olu-ents.K
Issue:
T&e constitutionalit$ o% t&e #rovisions o% !A No. *7)8.
9eld:
T&e #etitioners &ave t&e rig&t to re-ain in o%%ice until t&e e3#iration o% t&e ter-s %or "&ic& t&e$ &ave been
a##ointed+ unless sooner re-oved J%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% reorgani>ation
carried out b$ reason o% econo-$ or to re-ove redundanc$ o% %unctions+ or clear and e3#licit constitutional -andate
%or suc& ter-ination o% e-#lo$-ent.
Abolition o% o%%ice is not t&e sa-e as declaring t&at o%%ice is vacant. T&e latter "ould constitute an in%ringe-ent o%
t&e constitutional guarantee o% securit$ 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&orit$. 9e "as
designated as general @anager b$ t&e C&air-an o% t&e PTA 'oard.
In )99,+ Pres. AAuino sent /arruc&o+ Secretar$ o% Touris-+ a -e-orandu- stating t&at &is designation is invalid
because it "as not &er+ t&e President+ "&o a##ointed &i- as "&at is reAuired b$ P< No. 8*.. As suc&+ &e "ill re-ain
in t&e #osition until t&e President a##oints a #erson to serve in a #er-anent ca#acit$.
Isuue:
0&et&er or not t&ere is valid a##oint-ent
Held
!ppointment and designation are distinct from each other. "he former is defined as the selection# by the authority vested
with the power# of an individual who is to e$ercise the functions of a given office. %hen completed# the appointment results
in security of tenure. Designation# on the other hand# connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an
incumbent official and is legislative in nature. "he implication is that he shall hold office only in a temporary capacity and
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 received t&e
corres#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+ rea##ointed
res#ondent as Cor#orate Secretar$+ t&e sa-e #osition s&e le%t and retired %ro- barel$ a $ear earlier. !es#ondent
"as *. $ears old at t&e ti-e o% &er rea##oint-ent.

In its !esolution+ t&e 'oard o% Trustees classi%ied &er
a##oint-ent as 1con%idential in nature and t&e tenure o% o%%ice is at t&e #leasure o% t&e 'oard.1
Petitioner alleges t&at res#ondent2s rea##oint-ent on con%idential status "as -eant to illegall$ e3tend &er service
and circu-vent t&e la"s on co-#ulsor$ retire-ent.

T&is is because under !e#ublic Act 4!.A.5 No. 629)+ or t&e
/overn-ent Service Insurance S$ste- Act o% )997+ t&e co-#ulsor$ retire-ent age %or govern-ent e-#lo$ees is *8
$ears.
Issue:
0&et&er or not t&e Court be bound b$ a classi%ication o% a #osition as con%idential alread$ -ade b$ an agenc$ or
branc& o% govern-ent.
9eld:
Juris#rudence establis&es t&at t&e Court is not bound b$ t&e classi%ication o% #ositions in t&e civil service -ade b$
t&e legislative or e3ecutive branc&es+ or even b$ a constitutional bod$ li:e t&e #etitioner.

T&e Court is e3#ected to
-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$ con%idential
#osition or not+ "it&out being bound b$ #rior classi%ications -ade b$ ot&er bodies.
/ri;o v. CSC
Facts:
Petitioner Si3to <e-aisi# "as t&e %irst a##ointed Provincial Attorne$ o% Iloilo. "&en &e resigned &e reco--ended
t&e elevation o% res#ondent Teoti-o Arandela %ro- Senior =egal (%%icer to Provincial Attorne$. (IC /overnor
=icurgo Tirador decided to a##oint res#ondent Arandela as t&e Provincial Attorne$. !es#ondent Cirilo /elve>on+ on
t&e ot&er &and+ "as #ro-oted %ro- =egal (%%icer II to Senior =egal (%%icer. !es#ondents Teodol%o <ato?on and
Nelson /edus#an "ere a##ointed to t&e #osition o% =egal
(%%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 Februar$ 2+ )966+
&e in%or-ed res#ondent Arandela and all t&e legal o%%icers at t&e Provincial Attorne$2s (%%ice about &is decision to
ter-inate t&eir services. In &is letter+ #etitioner /ri;o -ade -ention o% an article #ertaining to t&e Iloilo o%%ice o%
t&e Provincial Attorne$ "&ic& a##eared in t&e Pana$ Ne"s and "&ic& 1under-ined t&at trust and con%idence1 t&at &e
re#osed on t&e-. Petitioner <e-aisi# "as rea##ointed b$ /overnor /ri;o as t&e Provincial Attorne$+ T&e latter+ on
t&e ot&er &and+ arranged t&e re#lace-ents o% t&e ot&er legal o%%icers. !es#ondent Cirilo /elve>on "as re#laced b$
#etitioner Santos Aguadera+ res#ondent Nelson /edus#an "as re#laced b$ #etitioner @anuel Casu-#ang and
#etitioner @anuel Travi;a too: t&e #lace o% res#ondent Teodol%o <ato?on.
(n @arc& )8+ )966+ #etitioner /overnor /ri;o %or-all$ ter-inated t&e services o% t&e res#ondents &erein on t&e
ground o% loss o% trust and con%idence. T&is action ta:en b$ t&e governor "as a##ealed b$ res#ondents to t&e @erit
S$ste-s Protection 'oard o% t&e Civil Service Co--ission.
(n @arc& 9+ )969+ t&e @erit S$ste-s 'oard issued an (rder declaring t&e res#ondents2 ter-ination illegal and
ordering t&at t&e$ be i--ediatel$ restored to t&eir #ositions "it& bac: salaries and ot&er e-olu-ents due t&e-.
T&is "as a##ealed b$ #etitioner /ri;o to t&e Civil Service Co--ission.
In !esolution No. 69?73* dated (ctober 9+ )969+ t&e Civil Service Co--ission a%%ir-ed t&e (rder o% t&e @erit
S$ste-s Protection 'oard+ and directed t&at t&e res#ondents be restored to t&eir %or-er legal #ositions and be
#aid bac: salaries and ot&er bene%its.
Issue:
whether or not the position of a provincial attorney and those of his legal subordinates are primarily confidential in nature so
that the services of those holding the said items can be terminated upon loss of confidence.
9eld:
In t&e cases o% Cadiente vs. Santos+ and 'esa vs. P&ili##ine National 'an:+ t&e Court ruled t&at t&e #osition o% a cit$
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$ classi%ied t&e #osition
o% #rivate res#ondent Arandela as a career #osition and certi%ied t&e sa-e as #er-anent+ &e is re-ovable onl$ %or
cause+ and t&ere%ore Cadiente is not a##licable. T&e Court %inds t&at #rivate res#ondent Arandela "as not dis-issed
or re-oved %ro- o%%ice "&en &is services "ere ter-inated. 9is ter- -erel$ e3#ired.
"hus# with respect to the legal assistants or subordinates of the provincial attorney namely# Cirilo &elve'on# "eodolfo Dato(
on and )elson &eduspan# the Cadiente and Besa rulings cannot apply. "he latter have been employed due to their technical
*ualifications. "heir positions are highly technical in character and not confidential# so they are permanent employees# and
they belong to the category of classified employees under the Civil Service Law. "hus# the items of Senior Legal Officer and
Legal Officer ++ remain permanent as classified by the Civil Service Commission. Conse*uently# the holders of the said
items# 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 #etitionerCs #osition void+ and to order t&e
res#ondent Cit$ @a$or to reinstate t&e- to t&eir %or-er #ositions. (rdinance No. )92 abolis&ed )8 #ositions in t&e
Cit$ @a$orCs o%%ice and )7 #ositions in t&e (%%ice o% t&e @unici#al 'oard "it& an alleged econo-ic and e%%icient
reason %or t&e abolition.
Issue:
0&et&er or not t&e (rdinace No. )92 "as done in bad %ait&+ "it& #ersonal or #olitical #ur#ose and violates t&e la".
9eld:
T&e reason given %or t&e abolition o% t&e #ositions is untrue+ and constitutes a -ere subter%uge %or t&e re-oval
"it&out cause o% t&e said a##ellees+ in violation o% Civil Service tenures as #rovided b$ t&e Constitution. Prior to t&e
abolition o% t&e #ositions+ t&e o%%ice o% t&e Cit$ @a$or no less t&an 38 ne" #ositions calling %or an outla$ o% *6+),,
#esos #er annu-.
A decent res#ect %or t&e Civil Service #rovisions o% our Constitution dictates t&at civil service eligibles+ "&o &ave
rendered long and &onorable services+ s&ould not be sacri%iced in %avor o% non?eligibles given #ositions o% recent
creation+ 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% Internal
!evenue 4'I!5 and t&e 'ureau o% Custo-s 4'(C5. T&e la" intends to encourage 'I! and '(C o%%icials and e-#lo$ees
to e3ceed t&eir revenue targets b$ #roviding a s$ste- o% re"ards and sanctions t&roug& t&e creation o% a !e"ards
and Incentives Fund 4Fund5 and a !evenue Per%or-ance valuation 'oard 4'oard5. It covers all o%%icials and
e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C "it& at least si3 -ont&s o% service+ regardless o% e-#lo$-ent status.
T&e 'oards &as t&e dut$ to 4)5 #rescribe t&e rules and guidelines %or t&e allocation+ distribution and release o% t&e
FundD 425 set criteria and #rocedures %or re-oving %ro- t&e service o%%icials and e-#lo$ees "&ose revenue
collection %alls s&ort o% t&e targetD 435 ter-inate #ersonnel in accordance "it& t&e criteria ado#ted b$ t&e 'oardD
4.5 #rescribe a s$ste- %or #er%or-ance evaluationD 485 #er%or- ot&er %unctions+ including t&e issuance o% rules and
regulations and 4*5 sub-it an annual re#ort to Congress.
7
T&e <(F+ <'@+ N<A+ 'I!+ '(C and t&e Civil Service Co--ission 4CSC5 "ere tas:ed to #ro-ulgate and issue t&e
i-#le-enting rules and regulations o% !A 9338+ to be a##roved b$ a Joint Congressional (versig&t Co--ittee
created %or suc& #ur#ose.
Petitioners+ invo:ing t&eir rig&t as ta3#a$ers %iled t&is #etition c&allenging t&e constitutionalit$ o% !A 9338+ a ta3
re%or- legislation. T&e$ contend t&at+ b$ establis&ing a s$ste- o% re"ards and incentives+ t&e la" 1trans%or-EsF t&e
o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C into -ercenaries and bount$ &unters1 as t&e$ "ill do t&eir best onl$
in consideration o% suc& re"ards. T&us+ t&e s$ste- o% re"ards and incentives invites corru#tion and under-ines t&e
constitutionall$ -andated dut$ o% t&ese o%%icials and e-#lo$ees to serve t&e #eo#le "it& ut-ost res#onsibilit$+
integrit$+ lo$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%%icials and e-#lo$ees
o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C violates t&e constitutional guarantee o% eAual #rotection. T&ere is no valid basis %or
classi%ication or distinction as to "&$ suc& a s$ste- s&ould not a##l$ to o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% all ot&er
govern-ent agencies.
Issue:
0&et&er or not !A 9338 violates securit$ o% tenure o% o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C
9eld:
Clearl$+ !A 9338 in no "a$ violates t&e securit$ o% tenure o% o%%icials and e-#lo$ees o% t&e 'I! and t&e '(C. T&e
guarantee o% securit$ o% tenure onl$ -eans t&at an e-#lo$ee cannot be dis-issed %ro- t&e service %or causes ot&er
t&an t&ose #rovided b$ la" and onl$ a%ter due #rocess is accorded t&e e-#lo$ee. In t&e case o% !A 9338+ it la$s
do"n a reasonable $ardstic: %or re-oval 4"&en t&e revenue collection %alls s&ort o% t&e target b$ at least 7.8G5
"it& due consideration o% all relevant %actors a%%ecting t&e level o% collection. T&is standard is analogous to
ine%%icienc$ and inco-#etence in t&e #er%or-ance o% o%%icial duties+ a ground %or disci#linar$ action under civil
service la"s. T&e action %or re-oval is also subBect to civil service la"s+ rules and regulations and co-#liance "it&
substantive and #rocedural due #rocess.
CSC v. SoBor
FACTS
!es#ondent 9enr$ A SoBor "as a##ointed b$ t&en President Cora>on AAuino as #resident o% Central Visa$as
Pol$tec&nic College 4CVPC5 in <u-aguete cit$ on August )+ )99). 9e "as subseAuentl$ rea##ointed b$ t&e 'oard o%
Trustees "&en t&e la" -andated t&at a '(T be %or-ed to act as t&e governing bod$ in state colleges. (n June 28+
2,,.+ CVPC converted into t&e Negros (riental State Hniversit$ 4N(!SH5+ t&e 'oard o% !egents 4'(!5 succeeded
t&e '(T as its governing bod$. @ean"&ile t&e res#ondent "as c&arged "it& 3 ad-inistrative cases %iled b$ CVPC
%acult$ -e-bers be%ore t&e CSC !egional (%%ice 4CSC?!(5 No. VII in Cebu Cit$ na-el$: 4)5 <is&onest$+ @isconduct+
and Falsi%ication o% (%%icial <ocu-entD 425 <is&onest$+ /rave @isconduct+ and Conduct PreBudicial to t&e 'est
Interest o% t&e ServiceD and 435 Ne#otis-. !es#ondent argued t&at CSC &as no Burisdiction over &i- as #residential
a##ointee. 9e %urt&er argued t&at onl$ t&e '(T &as t&e #o"er to re-ove universit$ o%%icials citing #rovisions o%
!.A. No. 6292. CSC issued a resolution dis-issing res#ondents a##eal and aut&ori>ing t&e regional o%%ice to #roceed
"it& t&e investigation and #reventivel$ sus#ending t&e res#ondent. 0&en t&e CSC denied t&e res#ondentCs -otion
%or reconsideration "it& %inalit$+ res#ondent a##ealed to t&e Court o% A##eals via a #etition %or
#ro&ibition. 9e alleged t&at t&e CSC acted "it&out or in e3cess o% its Burisdiction+ or "it& grave abuse o% discretion
a-ounting to lac: or e3cess o% Burisdiction "&en it issued t&e assailed resolutionsD t&at CSC encroac&ed u#on t&e
acade-ic %reedo- o% CVPCD and t&at t&e #o"er to re-ove+ sus#end+ and disci#line t&e #resident o% CVPC "as
e3clusivel$ lodged in t&e '(T o% CVPC. T&e CA resolved in %avor o% res#ondent. It annulled t&e Auestioned CSC
resolutions and #er-anentl$ enBoined t&e CSC %ro- #roceeding "it& t&e ad-inistrative investigation. 9ence t&is
#etition "as %iled b$ CSC.
ISSHS
0&et&er or not t&e CSC &as Burisdiction in t&e disci#line and re-oval o% state universit$ o%%icials.
!H=IN/
The Constitution $rants to the C&C administration over the entire civil service. s de0ned, the civil service
embraces every branch, a$ency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the $overnment, includin$ every
$overnment1owned or controlled corporation. #t is further classi0ed into career and non1career service
positions. The C&C has also been $ranted by the Constitution and the dministrative Code jurisdiction over
all civil service positions in the $overnment service, whether career or non1career. s provided in Revised
%niform Rules on dministrative Cases in the Civil &ervice &ec. 52 34xcept as otherwise provided by the
Constitution or by law, the Civil &ervice Commission shall have the 0nal authority to pass upon the removal,
separation and suspension of all o"cers and employees in the civil service and upon all matters relatin$ to
the conduct, discipline and e"ciency of such o"cers and employees.5 r$ument of the respondent that
6!R has the sole authority to discipline and remove his o"ce cannot prosper. The power of the 6!R to
discipline o"cials and employees is not exclusive. C&C has concurrent jurisdiction over a president of a
state university. cademic freedom cannot be invo7ed by &ojor as this is not applicable to the present case.
#t cannot be justi0ed that he is within the bounds of academic freedom since administrative complaints 0led
a$ainst him involve violations of civil service rules. 8etition was $ranted by the &upreme Court and reversed
the decision of the Court of ppeals.
PCSO Board of Directors v. Lapid
Facts:
!ecords s&o" t&at t&e #resent case is rooted on t&e S"orn State-ent e3ecuted b$ @r. =olito (. /ue-o+
C&ie% =otter$ (#erations (%%icer+ P&ili##ine C&arit$ S"ee#sta:es (%%ice 4PCS(5 'ataan Provincial <istrict
on June 23+ 2,,8. Said S"orn State-ent docu-ented an incident "&ic& allegedl$ occurred on June )7+ 2,,8+
"&erein res#ondent?a##ellant @arie Jean C. =a#id+ Casual Cler: 4Acting Teller5+ con%ronted+ bad-out&ed and
s&outed invectives at @r. /ue-o+ in t&e #resence o% ot&er e-#lo$ees and #atients see:ing assistance %ro-
t&e PCS(?'ataan Provincial <istrict (%%ice.
/ue-oCs declaration in &is s"orn state-ent "as also docu-ented in t&e @e-orandu- sent b$ t&e %or-er to
Jose%ina Sarsonas+ t&en (IC @anager o% t&e PCS( Nort&ern and Central =u>on <e#art-ent+ dated June 2,+
2,,8. T&e said @e-orandu- in%or-ed Sarsonas o% t&e incident "&ic& occurred in t&e PCS(?'ataan
Provincial <istrict (%%ice on June )7+ 2,,8.
T&e %oregoing incident re#ort "as also signed b$ si3 4*5 e-#lo$ees o% t&e PCS(?'ataan Provincial <istrict
(%%ice+ as "itnesses. T&e in%or-ation contained in t&e Incident !e#ort and S"orn State-ent o% /ue-o "as
also ec&oed in t&e incident re#ort o% Securit$ /uard Ja$son @. nriAue>+ "&o "as assigned to t&e PCS(?
'ataan Provincial <istrict (%%ice at t&e ti-e o% t&e incident.
(n June 2,+ 2,,8+ /ue-o sent a @e-orandu- to res#ondent?a##ellant =a#id+ reAuiring &er to e3#lain in
"riting "it&in sevent$ t"o 4725 &ours "&$ no ad-inistrative c&arges s&ould be %iled against &er as a result o%
t&e June )7+ 2,,8 incident. =a#id "as also %urnis&ed "it& a co#$ o% t&e incident re#ort. (n June 2.+ 2,,8+
res#ondent?a##ellant sub-itted &er re#l$ to /ue-oCs June 2,+ 2,,8 @e-orandu-. In res#ondent?a##ellantCs
re#l$ s&e denied t&e events+ as stated in /ue-oCs incident re#ort+ and gave &er o"n version o% t&e incident.
=a#id also alluded to t&e %iling o% a case against /ue-o "it& t&is Co--ission %or &arass-ent+ insulting
be&avior+ discourtes$ and o##ression.

T&e PCS( =egal <e#art-ent+ t&roug& Investigating (%%icer Att$. Victor @. @anla#a>+ sent a @e-orandu- to
=a#id on June 27+ 2,,8+ as:ing t&e latter to res#ond to t&e A%%idavit?Co-#laint o% /ue-o. !es#ondent?
a##ellant sub-itted &er IAns"er+ "it& Co--ent and @otion and @otion to <is-issC on Jul$ )9+ 2,,8. In &er
Ans"er+ =a#id stated t&at /ue-oCs co-#laint against &er -ust be dis-issed on t&e ground t&at t&e said
co-#laint does not con%or- to t&e essential reAuisites #rescribed b$ Section 6 o% t&e Hni%or- !ules in
Ad-inistrative Cases in t&e Civil Service. S&e also asserted t&at t&e ad-inistrative o%%ense o% I<iscourtes$
o% (%%icial FunctionC does not e3ist under Civil Service !ules.
Issue:
0&et&er or not t&e CSC is correct in ruling instead on t&e atstus o% t&e a##ellantCs casual e-#lo$-ent and not on
t&e issue o% non?observance o% due #rocess in t&e ter-ination o% a##ellantCs services
9eld:
=a#id clai-ed t&at t&e CSC erred in den$ing &er a##eal on t&e ground t&at s&e "as a casual e-#lo$ee "&o "as
J"it&out an$ securit$ o% tenure and -a$ be se#arated %ro- service at an$ ti-e.K S&e argued t&at t&e CSC s&ould
&ave decided &er a##eal on t&e -erits and resolved t&e issue o% "&et&er or not &er ter-ination %ro- service "as
e3ecuted "it& due #rocess. S&e %urt&er averred t&at JNo o%%icer or e-#lo$ee in t&e Civil Service s&all be
sus#ended or dis-issed e3ce#t %or cause as #rovided b$ la" and a%ter due #rocess.K
T&e CA agreed "it& =a#id. T&e CA ruled t&at "&ile it "as #reviousl$ &eld t&at casual e-#lo$ees "ere not #rotected
b$ securit$ o% tenure as t&e$ -a$ be re-oved %ro- t&e service "it& or "it&out cause+ a recent case decided b$ t&e
Court &eld ot&er"ise J%or Ieven a casual or te-#orar$ e-#lo$ee enBo$s securit$ o% tenure and cannot be dis-issed
e3ce#t %or cause enu-erated in Sec. 22+ !ule LIV o% t&e (-nibus Civil Service !ules and !egulations and ot&er
#ertinent la"s.CK Absent+ t&ere%ore+ a #roven cause to dis-iss+ t&e CA &eld t&at =a#id "as dis-issed "it&out cause
as conte-#lated in la".
!egarding t&e Auestion o% Jdue #rocess+K =a#id argued t&at s&e "as denied &er rig&t t&ereto because t&e c&arges
against &er "ere not dul$ #roven. T&e su##osed For-al C&arge "as unsigned and+ "orse+ it "as not served on &er. No
%or-al investigation "as ever conducted on &er case. T&e CA again ruled %or =a#id and &eld t&at s&e "as denied due
#rocess.
CSC v. PA/C(!
Facts:
Ariel !. @arAue> and Ireneo @. Vedillo "ere bot& e-#lo$ed as dealers in t&e ga-e o% Cra#s at t&e P&ili##ine
A-use-ent and /a-ing Cor#oration 4PA/C(!5 at t&e Casino Fili#ino 9eritage.
(n Nove-ber 2*+ 2,,*+ @arAue> and Verdillo alternatel$ -anned Cra#s Table No. 3,+ toget&er "it& Joselito
@aga&is and Virgilio !uanto. At around 2:.* a.-.+ @r. Jo&nn$ C&eng

began #la$ing at Cra#s Table No. 3, "it&
Verdillo as stic:-an and @arAue> as t&e #a$?o%% dealer. 0&ile doing &er rounds+ Acting Pit Su#ervisor ulalia Mang
noticed t&at on several occasions Verdillo -ade a Jgood diceK call even t&oug& not one o% t&e dice %ro- t&e #la$erCs
t&ro" &it t&e tableCs rubber "all. Alar-ed b$ "&at s&e sa"+ Mang re#orted t&e -atter to t&e Casino @anage-ent.
T&erea%ter+ @r. Ariston Tangalin+ t&e Acting Casino S&i%t @anager+ reAuested to revie" t&e Closed Circuit
Television 4CCTV5 %ootage o% t&e incident. A%ter "atc&ing t&e %ootage+ t&e -e-bers o% t&e Casino @anage-ent and
t&e investigators %ro- t&e Cor#orate Investigation Hnit "ere convinced t&at several void t&ro"s "ere declared as
Jgood diceK in Table No. 3, "&ile t&e sa-e "as being -anned b$ @arAue> and Verdillo.
Issue:
"&et&er or not @arAue> and Verdillo are guilt$ o% dis&onest$+ violation o% o%%ice rules and regulations and conduct
#reBudicial to t&e best interest o% t&e service to Busti%$ t&eir dis-issal %ro- service.
9eld:
In t&e #resent case+ t&e CSC %ound t&at a %or-al c&arge "as issued identi%$ing t&e ad-inistrative o%%enses
co--itted b$ @arAue>. A @e-orandu-

dated Nove-ber 26+ 2,,* "as issued c&arging @arAue> o% cons#iring "it&
Verdillo and C&eng in de%rauding PA/C(! during void ga-ing transactions at Table No. 3, on several occasions. 9e
"as t&en reAuired to e3#lain in "riting "it&in 72 &ours %ro- recei#t o% t&e @e-orandu-. !ecords also s&o" t&at &e
#artici#ated in t&e investigation b$ e3ecuting a Sinu-#aang Sala$sa$. T&erea%ter+ t&e '@P o% Casino Fili#ino?
9eritage conducted a %or-al investigation and invited &i- to attend t&e -eeting on <ece-ber )3+ 2,,* to e3#lain
&is side. Clearl$+ @arAue> "as su%%icientl$ in%or-ed o% t&e basis o% t&e c&arge against &i- and "as able to de%end
&i-sel%. 9e "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-inistrative case.
essence o% due #rocess in ad-inistrative #roceedings is t&at a #art$ be a%%orded a reasonable o##ortunit$ to be
&eard and to sub-it an$ evidence &e -a$ &ave in su##ort o% &is de%ense. T&e la" si-#l$ reAuires t&at t&e civil
servant is in%or-ed o% t&e nature and cause o% accusation against &i- in a clear and concise -anner to give t&e
#erson a c&ance to ans"er t&e allegations intelligentl$. videntl$+ PA/C(! substantiall$ co-#lied "it& t&e
reAuire-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#ondent Talens "&o
&eld #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or on t&e ground o% Jlac: and loss o% con%idenceK and a##ointing =i"ag to t&e
#osition.
!A No. 22*, declares t&e #osition o% secretaries to cit$ -a$ors non?co-#etitive and t&is "as inter#reted b$ @a$or
Sa-son as to include t&e #osition o% Asst. Sec. to t&e @a$or.
Issue:
=egalit$ o% Ad-inistrative (rder No. 3
9eld:
Secretar$ to t&e @a$or and Asst. Secretar$ to t&e @a$or are t"o se#arate and distinct #ositions. (ne is o% &ig&er
categor$ and ran: t&an t&e ot&er. T&e %unctions strictl$ attributable to a Jsecretar$+K is not auto-aticall$ vested or
trans%erred to an Jassistant secretar$+K because t&e latter si-#l$ assists or aids t&e %or-er in t&e acco-#lis&-ent
o% &is duties.
Ac&acoso v. @acaraig
Fact:
!A No. *7)8 <eclaring Vacant Jall #ositions o% t&e Co--issioners+ 3ecutive =abor Arbiters and =abor Arbiters o%
t&e #resent National =abor !elations Co--issionsK
T&e old #ositions "ere declared vacant because o% t&e Jneed to #ro%essionali>e t&e &ig&er levels o% o%%icialdo-
invested "it& adBudicator$ #o"ers and %unctions+ and u#grade t&eir Auali%ications+ ran:s and salaries or
e-olu-ents.K
Issue:
T&e constitutionalit$ o% t&e #rovisions o% !A No. *7)8.
9eld:
T&e #etitioners &ave t&e rig&t to re-ain in o%%ice until t&e e3#iration o% t&e ter-s %or "&ic& t&e$ &ave been
a##ointed+ unless sooner re-oved J%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% reorgani>ation
carried out b$ reason o% econo-$ or to re-ove redundanc$ o% %unctions+ or clear and e3#licit constitutional -andate
%or suc& ter-ination o% e-#lo$-ent.
Abolition o% o%%ice is not t&e sa-e as declaring t&at o%%ice is vacant. T&e latter "ould constitute an in%ringe-ent o%
t&e constitutional guarantee o% securit$ 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&orit$. 9e "as
designated as general @anager b$ t&e C&air-an o% t&e PTA 'oard.
In )99,+ Pres. AAuino sent /arruc&o+ Secretar$ o% Touris-+ a -e-orandu- stating t&at &is designation is invalid
because it "as not &er+ t&e President+ "&o a##ointed &i- as "&at is reAuired b$ P< No. 8*.. As suc&+ &e "ill re-ain
in t&e #osition until t&e President a##oints a #erson to serve in a #er-anent ca#acit$.
Isuue:
0&et&er or not t&ere is valid a##oint-ent
9eld:
A##oint-ent and designation are distinct %ro- eac& ot&er. T&e %or-er is de%ined as t&e selection+ b$ t&e aut&orit$
vested "it& t&e #o"er+ o% an individual "&o is to e3ercise t&e %unctions o% a given o%%ice. 0&en co-#leted+ t&e
a##oint-ent results in securit$ o% tenure. <esignation+ on t&e ot&er &and+ connotes -erel$ t&e i-#osition b$ la" o%
additional duties on an incu-bent o%%icial and is legislative in nature. T&e i-#lication is t&at &e s&all &old o%%ice onl$
in a te-#orar$ ca#acit$ and -a$ be re#laced at "ill b$ t&e a##ointing aut&orit$.
1 |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; #
<R= >C?:=9 &. @@RCR%A1 ::6 #C
SECTION 7: ARTICLE XI; ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Case: Buenasada v F!av"e#
$$% SCRA %&'
Fa()s: #n ',,B, the 9C<C 9urses ssociation )9C<C* 0led a case of $raft and corruption a$ainst Dr. 6ri$ida
6uenaseda and several other $overnment o"cials of the Department of Cealth )D!C*. The !mbudsman )then Conrado
EasqueF*, ordered the suspension of 6uenaseda et al. The suspension was carried on by then D!C &ecretary >uan
Glavier, bein$ the o"cer in char$e over 6uenaseda et al. 6uenaseda et al then 0led with the &upreme Court a petition
for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, questionin$ the suspension order. 9C<C submitted its Comment on the
8etition where they attached a <otion for Disbarment a$ainst the lawyers of 6uenaseda et al.
lle$edly, the lawyers of 6uenaseda et al advised them not to obey the suspension order, which is a lawful order from
a duly constituted authority. 9C<C maintains that such advice from the lawyersconstitute a violation a$ainst the Code
of 8rofessional Responsibility.
The &olicitor @eneral, commentin$ on the case, a$reed with 6uenasedaHs lawyers as he maintained that all the
!mbudsman can do is to recommend suspensions not impose them. The &ol1@en based his ar$ument on &ection '(
)(* of the ',-. Constitution which provides that the !"ce of the !mbudsman shall have inter alia the power, function,
and duty to/
Direct the o"cer concerned to ta7e appropriate action a$ainst a public o"cial or employee at fault, and recommend
his removal, suspension, demotion, 0ne, censure or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
Issues: ;hether or not the !mbudsman has the power to suspend $overnment o"cials. ;hether or not a <otion for
Disbarment may be 0led in a special civil action.
He!d: =es, the !mbudsman may impose suspension orders. The &upreme Court clari0es that what the !mbudsman
issued is an order of preventive suspension pendin$ the resolution of the case or investi$ation thereof. #t is not
imposin$ suspension as a penalty )not punitive suspension*. ;hat the Constitution contemplates that the !mbudsman
may recommend are punitive suspensions.
nent the issue of the <otion for Disbarment 0led with the !mbudsman, the same is not proper. #t cannot be 0led in
this special civil action which is con0ned to questions of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion for the purpose of relievin$
persons from the arbitrary acts of jud$es and quasi1judicial o"cers. There is a set of procedure for the discipline of
members of the bar separate and apart from the present special civil action. Cowever, the lawyers of 6uenaseda were
reminded not be carried away in espousin$ their clientHs cause. The lan$ua$e of a lawyer, both oral or written, must be
respectful and restrained in 7eepin$ with the di$nity of the le$al profession and with his behavioral attitude toward his
brethren in the profession. $ |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; #
<R= >C?:=9 &. @@RCR%A1 ::6 #C
SECTION 7: ARTICLE XI; ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Case: *a(a!"n+ v Sand",an-a.an
/7% SCRA &'$
Fa()s: !n &eptember '6, ',,B, two informations were 0led with the &andi$anbayan a$ainst petitioner,bein$ then the
ssistant <ana$er of the Treasury Division and the Cead of the :oans dministration I #nsurance &ection of the
8hilippine 9ational Construction Corporation )89CC*, a $overnment1controlled corporation, and his wife, :iwayway &.
Tan, char$in$ them with estafa throu$h falsi0cation of o"cial documents and frustrated estafa throu$h falsi0cation of
mercantile documents. %pon arrai$nment, petitioner pleaded not $uilty to the char$es.
Cowever, durin$ the initial presentation of evidence for the defense, petitioner moved for leave to 0le a motion to
dismiss on the $round that the &andi$anbayan has no jurisdiction over him since he is not a public o"cer because the
8hilippine 9ational Construction Corporation )89CC*, formerly the Construction and Development Corporation of the
8hilippines )CDC8*, is not a $overnment1owned or controlled corporation with ori$inal charter.
!n u$ust 5, ',,,, the &andi$anbayan promul$ated a resolution denyin$ petitionerHs motion to dismiss for lac7 of
merit.
Issues: ;hether or not the petitioner, an employee of the 89CC, is a public o"cer within the covera$e of R. . 9o.
(J',, as amended.
He!d: #nasmuch as the 89CC has no ori$inal charter as it was incorporated under the $eneral law on corporations, it
follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public o"cer within the covera$e of R. . 9o. (J',, as amended. Thus, the
&andi$anbayan has no jurisdiction over him. The only instance when the &andi$anbayan has jurisdiction over a private
individual is when the complaint char$es him either as a co1principal, accomplice or accessory of a public o"cer who
has been char$ed with a crime within the jurisdiction of &andi$anbayan. / |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; #
<R= >C?:=9 &. @@RCR%A1 ::6 #C
SECTION 7: ARTICLE XI; ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Case: Bu#eau +0 In)e#na! Revenue v O1(e +0 )2e O3-uds3an
4R NO 11'15/6 A7#"! 116$55$
Fa()s: The !"ce of the !mbudsman received information from an informer1for1reward that tax refunds have been
anomalously $ranted to Distillera :imtuaco I Co., #nc. and :a TondeKa Distilleries, #nc. %pon receipt of the information,
&oquilon recommended to then !mbudsman Conrado <. EasqueF that the 3case5 be doc7eted and subsequently
assi$ned to him for investi$ation.
!n the basis of the information, the !<6 issued a subpoena duces tecumaddressed to tty. <ansequiao of the :e$al
Department of the 6#R orderin$ him to appear before him and to brin$ the complete ori$inal case doc7ets of the
refunds $ranted to the said companies.
6#R resisted the summons on the $rounds that the $rant of the tax refund had already been mooted by the
&andi$anbayan in 8eople vs :arin, that 3the le$al issue was no lon$er in question since the 6#R had ruled that the
valoremtaxes were erroneously paid and could therefore be the proper subject of a claim for tax credit.5 6#R ar$ued
that for subpoena duces tecum to be properly issued in accordance with law, there must 0rst be a pendin$ action
because the power to issue a subpoena duces tecum is not an independent proceedin$. The 6#R noted that the
!mbudsman issued the assailed subpoena duces tecum based only on the information obtained from an 3informer1for1
reward5.
The !mbudsman denied the motion of the 6#R and reiterated its instructions to the 6#R to produce the documents
sou$ht. #nstead of complyin$, the 6#R 0led this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction, and
temporary restrainin$ order with the &C.
Issues: ;hether or not the !mbudsman could validly exercise its power to investi$ate only when there exists an
appropriate case and subject to the limitations provided by law
He!d: 9o. The ',-. Constitution enjoins that the 3!mbudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act
promptly on complaints fled in any form or manner a$ainst public o"cials or employees of the $overnment, or
any subdivision, a$ency or instrumentality thereof, includin$ $overnment1owned or controlled corporations, and shall,
in appropriate case, notify the complainants of the action ta7en and the result thereof.5 There is no requirement of a
pendin$ action before the !mbudsman could wield its investi$ative power. 4ven when the complaint is verbal or
written, unsi$ned or unveri0ed, the !mbudsman could, on its own, initiate the investi$ation. & |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : :
; #
<R= >C?:=9 &. @@RCR%A1 ::6 #C
SECTION 7: ARTICLE XI; ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Case: Lau#e! v Des"e#)+
4R NO 1&'/%86 A7#"! 1$6$55$
Fa()s: 8etitioner Eice18resident &alvador :aurel was appointed as the head of the 9ational Centennial Commission, a
body constituted for the preparation of the 9ational Centennial celebration in ',,-. Ce was subsequently appointed as
the Chairman of 4xpoCorp., and was one of the nine ),* incorporators. controversy erupted on the alle$ed anomalies
with the biddin$ contracts to some entities and the petitioner was implicated. 6y virtue of an investi$ation conducted
by the !"ce of the !mbudsman, the petitioner was indicted for alle$ed violation of the nti1@raft and Corrupt
8ractices ct )R (J',*. The petitioner 0led a <otion to Dismiss questionin$ the jurisdiction of the !"ce of the
!mbudsman, which was denied. Ce further 0led a motion for reconsideration which was also denied, hence this
petition for certiorari.
Issues: ;hether or not the petitionerHs contention is correct.
He!d The !mbudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a public o"cer. The 9CC is an o"ce
performin$ executive functions since one of its mandates is to implement national policies. <oreover, the said o"ce
was established by virtue of an executive order. #t is clear that the 9CC performs soverei$n functions2 hence it is a
public o"ce. &ince petitioner is chair of the 9CC, he is therefore a public o"cer. The fact that the 9CC was
characteriFed by 4! 'B- as an Lad1hoc bodyH ma7es it less of a public o"ce. Ginally, the fact that the petitioner did not
receive any compensation durin$ his tenure is of no consequence since such is merely an incidence and forms no part
of the o"ce. ' |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; #
<R= >C?:=9 &. @@RCR%A1 ::6 #C
SECTION 7: ARTICLE XI; ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Case: Pe#e9 v Sand",an-a.an
'5/ SCRA $'$
Fa()s: !n '( <arch BJJ', the ?apisanann$m$a6road?astern$8ilipinas)?68*, an association representin$ duly
franchised and authoriFed television and radio networ7s throu$hout the country, sent a letter requestin$ the Court to
allow live media covera$e of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases 0led a$ainst former 8resident
>oseph 4. 4strada before the &andi$anbayan in order Mto assure the public of full transparency in the proceedin$s of an
unprecedented case in our history.M The request was seconded by <r. Cesar 9. &arino in his letter of J5 pril BJJ' to
the Chief >ustice and, still later, by &enator Renato Cayetano and ttorney Ricardo Romulo.
Issues: ;hat is the extent of the ri$ht to information of the press on coverin$ judicial proceedin$s
He!d n accused has a ri$ht to a public trial but it is a ri$ht that belon$s to him, more than anyone else, where his life
or liberty can be held critically in balance. public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be
unjustly condemned and that his ri$hts are not compromised in secrete conclaves of lon$ a$o. public trial is not
synonymous with publiciFed trial2 it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in
the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. #n the constitutional sense, a
courtroom should have enou$h facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedin$s, not too
small as to render the openness ne$li$ible and not too lar$e as to distract the trial participants from their proper
functions, who shall then be totally free to report what they have observed durin$ the proceedin$s. The courts
reco$niFe the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the ri$ht to public information. #t also approves of
mediaNs exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveyin$ the proceedin$s to the
public and in acquaintin$ the public with the judicial process in action2 nevertheless, within the courthouse, the
overridin$ consideration is still the paramount ri$ht of the accused to due process which must never be allowed to
suOer diminution in its constitutional proportions. >ustice Clar7 thusly pronounced, Mwhile a maximum freedom must be
allowed the press in carryin$ out the important function of informin$ the public in a democratic society, its exercise
must necessarily be subject to the maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial process.M % |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : :
; #
<R= >C?:=9 &. @@RCR%A1 ::6 #C
SECTION 7: ARTICLE XI; ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Case: Ca!"n,"n v Des"e#)+
'$: SCRA7$5
Fa()s: 8etitioner ntonio 8. Calin$in is a former mayor of Claveria, <isamis !riental. Durin$ his incumbency, the
municipality undertoo7 a low1cost housin$ project 7nown as the 6ahay Ticala Cousin$ 8roject )housin$ project*. #n a
Resolution dated December B, ',,-, @raft #nvesti$ation !"cer >ocelyn R. raune of the !"ce of the Deputy
!mbudsman for <indanao recommended the 0lin$ of criminal char$es a$ainst the petitioner and co1accused for
violation of &ection ()e* and ()h* of R.. 9o. (J',, otherwise 7nown as nti1@raft and Corrupt 8ractices, and for
violation of rticle BBJ of the Revised 8enal Code based from the audit conducted by the C!. %pon review, however,
&pecial 8rosecution !"cer lberto 6. &ipaco, >r., !"ce of the !mbudsman for <indanao recommended that the said
Resolution be disapproved and the char$es be dismissed for insu"ciency of evidence. !n u$ust '(, ',,,, then
!mbudsman niano . Desierto, respondent, disapproved the <emorandum of &ipaco and approved the Resolution of
raune.
Issues/ #s the &pecial 8rosecutor co1equal to the !mbudsman or to his deputiesP
He!d( 9o. The !"ce of the !mbudsman and the !"ce of the &pecial 8rosecutor are creatures of the ',-. Constitution
as provided by &ections 5, . and '( of rticle +#. #n Aaldivar v. &andi$anbayan, the Court ruled that under the
Constitution, the &pecial 8rosecutor is a mere subordinate of the !mbudsman and can investi$ate and prosecute cases
only upon the latterHs authority or orders. R.. 9o. 6..J, also 7nown as the !mbudsman ct of ',-,, provides that the
&pecial 8rosecutor has the power and authority, under the supervision and control of the !mbudsman, to conduct
preliminary investi$ation and prosecute criminal cases before the &andi$anbayan and perform such other duties
assi$ned to him by the !mbudsman. Eerily, the !"ce of the &pecial 8rosecutor is but a mere subordinate of the
!mbudsman and is subject to his supervision and control. #n 8ereF v. &andi$anbayan, this Court held that control
means 3the power of an o"cer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate o"cer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the jud$ment of the former for that of the latter.5 Clearly, in disapprovin$
the recommendation of the !"ce of the &pecial 8rosecutor to dismiss all the char$es a$ainst petitioner and his co1
accused, respondent !mbudsman did not act with $rave abuse of discretion.
THE SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BARANGAY DON MARIANO MARCOS, MUNICIPALITY OF BAYOMBONG PROVINCE OF
NUEVA VISCAYA represented by BARANGAY AGA!AD "OSE CENEN SANTOS, MARIO BACUD, !ALTER FRANCISCO, ROSITA
SEBASTIAN, 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 1220
3
and 42 )ovember 1220
of the .egional "rial Court 5trial court6# Branch 17# of Bayombong# )ueva 8i'caya# in Special Civil !ction )o. 9717. +n its assailed Orders# the trial
court ruled that the Sangguniang Bayan of Bayombong# )euva 8i'caya 5Sangguniang Bayan6# e$ceeded its ,urisdiction when it imposed upon
respondent 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 office.
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 from office on any of
the following grounds
!n elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. 5<mphasis provided.6
"he instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Bayombong ."C in Special Civil !ction )o. 9717 is AFFIRMED
SALVADOR M% PERE$ #nd "UANITA A% APOSTOL, petitioners#
vs.
HON% SANDIGANBAYAN &'nd D()(s(*n+ #nd PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by t,e
Spe-(#. Pr*se-/t*r *0 t,e O00(-e *0 t,e O1b/ds1#n, respondents.
F#-ts
"hat on or about September of 3==># 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<.<?# being then the :unicipal :ayor and @A!)+"! !POS"OL# ?!P!)"!#
:unicipal "reasurer of said municipality# conspiring and confederating with one another# committing the
crime herein charged in relation to and taBing advantage of their official functions# and through manifest
partiality# evident bad faith or gross ine$cusable negligence# did then and there# wilfully# unlawfully and
criminally cause the purchase of one 536 computer unit costing P312#222.22 ac*uisition by personal
canvass which is in violation of Secs. 491 and 497 of ..!. 7392# thereby causing undue in,ury to the
:unicipality of San :anuel# Pangasinan.
9
+ssues
3. %hether or not there is a denial of procedural due process on the part of the petitioners when the Special
Prosecutor filed the !mended +nformation without authority from or the approval of the Honorable
Ombudsman# and against the latterCs specific instructionD
1. %hether or not the !mended +nformation is valid in the absence of such authority or approval of the
Ombudsman under the circumstancesD and
4. %hether or not respondent Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lacB or
e$cess of ,urisdiction# when it admitted the !mended +nformation which bears no approval of the
Honorable Ombudsman# and against the latterCs written instruction to submit to him for approval the result
of 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 is
charged 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 or
inefficient.E 5Sec. 34# par. 36
"he Constitution liBewise provides that
E"he e$isting "anodbayan shall hereafter be Bnown as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. +t shall continue
to function and e$ercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law# e$cept those conferred on
the 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 ># Section
34# !rticle F+ of the Constitution# the Ombudsman may Ee$ercise such other powers or perform functions
or duties as may be provided by law#E it is indubitable then that Congress has the power to place the Office
of 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 OmbudsmanD or
grant the Office of the Special Prosecutor such other powers and functions and duties as Congress may
deem fit and wise. "his Congress did through the passage of ..! )o. 9772.
14
"he instant Petition for Certiorari is &.!)"<D. "he assailed .esolutions of the
Sandiganbayan admitting the !mended +nformation is S<" !S+D<. Let the > :arch
122/ Supplemental :emorandum of !ssistant Special Prosecutor +++ %arlito -.
&alisanao be ".!)S:+""<D to the Office of the Ombudsman for approval or
disapproval.
Buen(a3"n+ v (a
F#-ts
4dmundo >ose T. 6uencamino, petitioner, is the incumbent mayor of &an <i$uel,
6ulacan, while Constantino 8ascual, private respondent, is the president of Rosemoor <inin$
and Development Corporation, a company en$a$ed in the minin$ of marble bloc7s.
!n u$ust B., BJJQ, private respondent 0led with the !"ce of the !mbudsman, public
respondent, an administrative complaint a$ainst petitioner for $rave misconduct, abuse of
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 3pass
way5 fee or a re$ulatory fee of 8',JJJ.JJ for every delivery truc7 that passes the territorial
jurisdiction of &an <i$uel, 6ulacan is ille$al.
#n his answer, petitioner denied the alle$ations of the complaint, explainin$ that he
imposed the payment of re$ulatory fees pursuant to Kapasiyahan Blg. -,1J55, an ordinance
enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of &an <i$uel, 6ulacan.
Cowever, accordin$ to private respondent, the municipal ordinance was disapproved
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of 6ulacan for bein$ ultra vires because the :ocal
@overnment Code of ',,' does not empower any municipality to impose tax on delivery
truc7s of minin$ companies passin$ throu$h its territorial jurisdiction.
#ssues
An a77ea! s2a!! n+) s)+7 )2e de("s"+n 0#+3 -e"n, e;e(u)+#. .
A de("s"+n +0 )2e O1(e +0 )2e O3-uds3an "n ad3"n"s)#a)"ve
(ases s2a!! -e e;e(u)ed as a 3a))e# +0 (+u#se.
Celd
Clearly, considerin$ that an appeal under dministrative !rder 9o. '., the amendatory
rule, shall not stop the Decision of the !"ce of the !mbudsman from bein$ executory, we hold
that the Court of ppeals did not commit $rave abuse of discretion in denyin$ petitionerHs
application for injunctive relief.
#t bears stressin$ at this point that &ection '()-*, rticle +# of the Constitution
authoriFes the !"ce of the !mbudsman to promul$ate its own rules, thus/
&ection '(. The !"ce of the !mbudsman shall have the followin$
powers, functions, and duties/
)-* 8romul$ate its own rules of procedure and exercise such
other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be
provided by law.
#n turn, &ection '- of the !mbudsman ct of ',-, provides/
&ection '-. Rules of 8rocedure. R )'* The !"ce of the
!mbudsman shall promul$ate its rules of procedure for the
eOective exercise or performance of its powers, functions and
duties.
<HEREFORE6 we DENY the petition. Costs a$ainst petitioner.
:!R9 . <4D#9 v. C!
Gacts
The instant petition ori$inated from the audit conducted by respondent Commission on
udit )C!* on the cash and accounts handled by petitioner in her o"cial capacity as
<unicipal Treasurer of @eneral <ariano lvareF, Cavite. #n the >oint "davit
'
SQT executed by
'
herein respondents 4ufrocinia <. <awa7, head of the audit team, and &usana :. 8allerna, <a.
Dolores C. Tepora and a certain 9elson T. lvareF, who were all state auditors of the 8rovincial
uditorHs !"ce of Cavite, they all stated that they had examined petitionerHs 0nancial records
coverin$ ', u$ust ',,, to B6 &eptember BJJJ and discovered a total cash shorta$e in the
a$$re$ate amount of 8Q,J-J,6('.(6. They thus directed petitioner to immediately restitute the
shorta$e within .B hours from receipt of the demand letter but petitioner alle$edly failed to
comply. The state auditors submitted a report to the 8rovincial uditorHs !"ce and
recommended the relief of petitioner from her post as municipal treasurer and the 0lin$ of
criminal char$es a$ainst her.
#ssues
whether petitioner was deprived of her ri$ht to due process, whether the penalty of
dismissal is proper and whether petitionerHs $uilt for $rave misconduct and dishonesty is
supported by substantial evidence.
Celd
#t must be stressed that dishonesty and $rave misconduct have always been and should
remain anathema in the civil service. They inevitably reUect on the 0tness of a civil servant to
continue in o"ce. ;hen an o"cer or employee is disciplined, the object sou$ht is not the
punishment of such o"cer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the
preservation of the publicHs faith and con0dence in the $overnment.
B
S(6T
The instant petition for review on certiorari is D49#4D. The Decision and Resolution of the Court
of ppeals in C1@.R. &8 9o. -,5(, are hereby GG#R<4D. Costs a$ainst petitioner.
VILLASE2OR ) s#nd(3#nb#y#n
F#-ts
8etitioners see7 to annul and set aside the &andi$anbayan
(
S'T Resolution
Q
SBT of >uly (, BJJ. in
Criminal Case 9o. B..56 for violation of &ection (, Republic ct )R..* 9o. (J',,
5
S(T as
amended, suspendin$ them pendente lite. lso assailed is the !ctober 'J, BJJ. Resolution
6
SQT
denyin$ their motion for reconsideration.
+ssues
DO<S preventive suspension in an administrative proceeding bar preventive suspension in a criminal case founded on
the same facts and circumstancesG
B
4
/H1I Penned by !ssociate @ustice :a. Cristina &. Corte'(<strada# with !ssociate @ustices
.oland B. @urado and "eresita 8. Dia'(Baldos# concurringD rollo, pp. 91(9=.
0
9
Celd
Mandatory nature of preventive
suspension
#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 benefts. R ny incumbent public o"cer a$ainst whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this ct or under Title ., 6oo7 ## of the Revised
8enal Code or for any oOense involvin$ 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 mode
of 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 rule
is that criminal and civil cases are alto$ether diOerent from administrative matters, such that
the 0rst two will not inevitably $overn or aOect the third and vice versa. Eerily, administrative
cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedin$s. criminal actions will not preclude
administrative proceedin$s, and vice1versa, insofar as the application of the law on preventive
suspension is concerned.
Preventive suspension not a penalty
8reventive suspension is distinct from the penalty. ;hile the former may be imposed on a
respondent durin$ the investi$ation of the char$es a$ainst him, the latter may be meted out to
him at the 0nal disposition of the case.
Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 3019 not a penal provision ut a procedural one
8enal statutes are strictly construed while procedural statutes are liberally construed
)Crawford, &tatutory Construction, #nterpretation of :aws, pp. Q6J1Q6'2 Lacson v. Romero, ,B
8hil. Q56 S',5(T*. The test in determinin$ if a statute is penal is whether a penalty is imposed
for the punishment of a wron$ to the public or for the redress of an injury to an individual )5,
CorpuF >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 lift of suspension after ninety !90" days
#t must be borne in mind that the preventive suspension of petitioners will only last
ninety ),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 inde0nite
duration or for an unreasonable len$th of time. The Court has thus laid down the rule that
preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of ninety ),J* days, in
consonance with 8residential Decree 9o. -J., now &ection 5B of the dministrative Code of
',-..
<HEREFORE, the petition is DIS*ISSED for lac7 of merit.
&4;2H* 11
'.C&( v. San$igan%a)an * '+, SCRA ,-, .'++'/
FACTS:
4hat on or about !ay 1=, 196,, in !etro !anila, the said accused, being then the 'resident and
Aeneral !anager and the Vice 'resident and 4reasurer, respectively of the A5;5, a government
financial institution, conspiring and confederating together and with others who will be charged
separately, did then and there, in the discharge of their official administrative functions, unlawfully
and contrary to 2entral 0anD &ules and &egulations, enter into a contract with 2or-sia, a private
corporation, whereby A5;5, under the terms and conditions manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the A5;5, sold, transferred and conveyed to said 2or-sia seven percent
#-Q$ 2.-year 2ultural 2enter of the 'hilippines #22'$ at about forty #C.Q$ percent discount or at
a lower price of only about 5*V*< !;HH;O< 48O 3R<D&*D 43&** #sic$ #'-,2.,,.../..$
'*5O5, when said bonds could then be easily sold, and was in fact eventually sold to
2O!0<+, a few days thereafter, at about twelve #12Q$ percent discount only or at a much
higher price of 4*< !;HH;O< 1OR& 3R<D&*D 1;14**< 43OR5<D O<* 3R<D&*D
#'1.,C1B,1../..$ '*5O5, thereby giving 2or-sia unwarranted benefits and advantages, to the
damage and pre"udice of the 'hilippine Aovernment in the sum of about 43&** !;HH;O< 48O
3R<D&*D 48*HV* 43OR5<D #',,212,.../..$ '*5O5, 'hilippine 2urrency/
;55R*(8hether or not the respondent 'residential 2ommission on Aood Aovernment #'2AA$
has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation and file the information with the
5andiganbayan for violation of the nti-Araft and 2orrupt 'ractices ct by alleged cronies or
associates of former 'resident 1erdinand */ !arcos/
HELD: 4he '2AA has the power to investigate and prosecute such ill-gotten wealth cases of the
former 'resident, his relatives and associates, and graft and corrupt practices cases that may be
assigned by the 'resident to the '2AA to be filed with the 5andiganbayan/ <o doubt, the
authority to investigate e%tended to the '2AA includes the authority, to conduct a preliminary
investigation/
0. Mace$a v. 1as2&e( * 00' SCRA ,3, .'++4/
Facts(
&espondent <apoleon biera of 'O filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
against petitioner &42 )udge 0onifacio 5anI !aceda/ &espondent biera alleged that petitioner
!aceda has falsified his certificate of service by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which
have been submitted for decision for a period of 9. days have been determined and decided on
or before )anuary ,1, 1969, when in truth and in fact, petitioner !aceda Dnew that no decision
had been rendered in B civil and 1. criminal cases that have been submitted for decision/
&espondent biera alleged that petitioner !aceda falsified his certificates of service for 1-
months/
Iss&e:
8hether or not the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the
529s constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts
He#$:
"udge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the 52 for serious
misconduct and under 5ec/ 1, &ule 1C. of the &ules of 2ourt, and criminally liable to the 5tate
under the &evised 'enal 2ode for his felonious act/
;n the absence of any administrative action taDen against him by the 2ourt with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the
2ourt9s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the
doctrine of separation of powers/
rt/ V;;;, 5ec/ = of the 2onstitution e%clusively vests in the 52 administrative supervision over all
courts and court personnel, from the 'residing )ustice of the 2 down to the lowest municipal
trial court clerD/ 0y virtue of this power, it is only the 52 that can oversee the "udges9 and court
personnel9s compliance with all laws, and taDe the proper administrative action against them if
they commit any violation thereof/ <o other branch of government may intrude into this power,
without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers/
8here a criminal complaint against a "udge or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to
the 52 for determination whether said "udge or court employee had acted within the scope of
their administrative duties/
4. Maca#ino v. San$igan%a)an * 4-3 SCRA ,50
1acts(
On 5eptember 1=, 1992, two informations were filed with the 5andiganbayan against
petitioner,being then the ssistant !anager of the 4reasury Division and the 3ead of the Hoans
dministration S ;nsurance 5ection of the 'hilippine <ational 2onstruction 2orporation #'<22$, a
government-controlled corporation, and his wife, Hiwayway 5/ 4an, charging them with estafa
through falsification of official documents and frustrated estafa through falsification of mercantile
documents/ Rpon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges/
3owever, during the initial presentation of evidence for the defense, petitioner moved for leave to
file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the 5andiganbayan has no "urisdiction over him since
he is not a public officer because the 'hilippine <ational 2onstruction 2orporation #'<22$,
formerly the 2onstruction and Development 2orporation of the 'hilippines #2D2'$, is not a
government-owned or controlledco rporation with original charter/
On ugust B" 1999, the 5andiganbayan promulgated a resolution denying petitioner9s motion to
dismiss for lacD of merit/
;ssue(
8hether petitioner, an employee of the '<22, is a public officer within the coverage of &/ / <o/
,.19, as amended/
&uling(
;nasmuch as the '<22 has no original charter as it was incorporated under the general law on
corporations, it follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of &/ /
<o/ ,.19, as amended/ 4hus, the 5andiganbayan has no "urisdiction over him/ 4he only instance
when the 5andiganbayan has "urisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint charges
him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has been charged
with a crime within the "urisdiction of 5andiganbayan/
C/ Aarcia v/ !iro, A& <o/ 1C69CC, 1eb B, 2..,
1245(
'etitioner lvin 0/ Aarcia, as then mayor of 2ebu 2ity, signed a contract with 1/*/ Guellig on !ay
-, 1996/ 1/*/ Guellig is the 'hilippine distributor of 0itume%, a brand name of an asphalt
product/ 4he contract essentially provided that 1/*/ Guellig shall be the e%clusive supplier of
asphalt for the city9s asphalt batching plant for a period of three years, from 1996 to 2..1, with
the initial delivery of asphalt in 5eptember, 1996/
5ubsequently, petitioner was elected to a new term as mayor/ 4he respondent Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas thereafter sought to hold him administratively liable on the aforesaid
contract and ordered him preventively suspended for si% months/ 'etitioner came to us in an
earlier petition alleging grave abuse of discretion/
;55R*(
8:n Ombudsman and his Deputies, can file complaints against public officials or employees of
Aovernment/
3*HD(
Ees/5ection 12, rticle >; of the 2onstitution states that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on ?complaints filed in any form or manner against
public officials or employees of Aovernment/@ ;n Almonte v. #as$e%,
N1BO
we held that even
unverified and anonymous letters may suffice to start an investigation/ ;n permitting the filing of
complaints ?in any form or manner,@ the framers of the 2onstitution tooD into account the well-
Dnown reticence of the people which Deep them from complaining against official
wrongdoings/ 4he Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and
prosecutory agencies of the government because those sub"ect to its "urisdiction are public
officials who, through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations
held against them/
N1=O
5. Honasan II v. Pane# o6 Investigating Posec&tos * GR No. '5+-,-7 A8i# '47 099,
1acts(
ugust C, 2..,( 2;DA-'<':' Director *dguardo !atillano filed an affidavit-complaint with the
Department of )ustice #DO)$ which contains the following in part(
)uly 2-, 2..,( crime of coup d9 etat was committed by military personnel who occupied OaDwood
and 5enator Aregorio ?Aringo@ 3onasan, ;;
On or about 11 p/m/ )une C,2..,( meeting was held and presided by 5enator 3onasan in a
house located in 5an )uan, !etro !anila
*arly morning of )uly 2-, 2..,( 2apt/ Aerardo Aambala, in behalf of the military rebels occupying
OaDwood, made a public statement aired on national television, stating their withdrawal of
support to the chain of command of the 1' and the Aovernment of 'resident Aloria !acapagal
rroyo/ 8illing to risD their lives to achieve the <ational &ecovery genda #<&$ of 5enator
3onasan which they believe is the only program that would solve the ills of society/
5worn statement of 1' !a"or 'erfecto &agil stated that(
)une C, 2.., about 11 pm( 5enator Aregorio ?Aringo@ 3onasan arrived with 2apt/ 4uringa to hold
the <&' meeting where they concluded the use of force, violence and armed struggle to achieve
the vision of <&' where a "unta will be constituted which will run the new government/ 4hey had
a blood compact and that he only participated due to the threat made by 5enator 3onasan when
he said ?+ung Daya nating pumatay sa ating mga Dalaban, Daya din nating pumatay sa mga
Dasamahang magtataDsil/@
)uly 2-, 2..,( 3e saw on 4V that Hieutenant ntonio 4rillanes, 2aptain Aerardo Aambala,
2aptain le"ano and some others who were present during the <&' meeting he attended, having
a press conference about their occupation of the OaDwood 3otel/ 3e saw that the letter F;F on the
arm bands and the banner is the same letter F;F in the banner is the same as their blood compact
wound/
ugust 2-, 2..,( 5enator 3onasan appeared with counsel at the DO) to file a a !otion for
2larification questioning DO)7s "urisdiction over the case since the imputed acts were committed
in relation to his public office by a group of public officials with 5alary Arade ,1 which should be
handled by the Office of the Ombudsman and the 5andiganbayan
5enator 3onasan then filed a petition for certiorari under &ule =B of the &ules of 2ourt against
the DO) 'anel and its members, 2;DA-'<'-':Director *duardo !atillano and Ombudsman
5imeon V/ !arcelo, attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DO) 'anel in issuing
the aforequoted Order of 5eptember 1., 2.., directing him to file his respective counter-affidavits
and controverting evidence on the ground that the DO) has no "urisdiction to conduct the
preliminary investigation
;ssues(
1/ 8hether in regards to Ombudsman-DO) 2ircular no/ 9B-..1, the office of the
Ombudsman should deputiIe the prosecutors of the DO) to conduct the preliminary
investigation/
2/ 8hether the Ombudsman has "urisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
because the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade ,1 #Arade 2- or 3igher$ thereby
falling within the "urisdiction of the 5andigan 0ayan/
3eld( 8herefore, the petition for certiorari is D;5!;55*D for lacD of merit
1/ <o/ Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses may be subdivided into two classes, to wit(
#1$ those cogniIable by the 5andiganbayan, and #2$ those falling under the "urisdiction of the
regular courts/ 4he difference between the two, aside from the category of the courts wherein
they are filed, is on the authority to investigate as distinguished from the authority to prosecute/
4he power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman case
may be e%ercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, or by any
'rovincial or 2ity 'rosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities or as
deputiIed Ombudsman prosecutors/
4he 2onstitution, 4he Ombudsman ct of 1969, dministrative order no/ 6 of the office of
the Ombudsman/ 4he prevailing "urisprudence and under the &evised &ules on 2riminal
'rocedure, ll recogniIe and uphold the concurrent "urisdiction of the Ombudsman and the
DO) to conduct preliminary investigation on charges filed against public officers and
employees/
4he DO) 'anel need not be authoriIed nor deputiIed by the Ombudsman to conduct the
preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because the DO)7s authority to act as the
principal law agency of the government and investigate the commission of crimes under the
&evised 'enal 2ode is derived from the &evised dministrative 2ode which had been held in
the <atividad case1, as not being contrary to the 2onstitution/ 4hus, there is not even a need
to delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an agency which has the "urisdiction
to do so in the first place/ 3owever, the Ombudsman may assert its primary "urisdiction at any
stage of the investigation/
2/ <o/ 8hether or not the offense is within e%clusive "urisdiction or not will not resolve the present
petition so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation conducted by the DO) 'anel/
=/ 5amson v/ O!0, A& 11--C1, 5ept 29, 2..C
1245(
4his petition for certiorari and mandams seeDs the reversal of public respondent Office of the
Ombudsman *valuation and 'reliminary ;nvestigation 0ureau9s( N1O "oint resolution dated !ay 2-,
199C #?"oint resolution@$
N1O
which dismissed petitioner !oises 5/ 5amson9s complaint against
private respondents Dr/ Heonito H/ 2atarro"a and <orma 5ancheI for allegedly printing and
issuing health certificates sans serial numbers and official receipts to applicants without prior
medical e%amination, in violation of & ,.19 #the nti-Araft and 2orrupt 'ractices ct$, as well as
private respondents9 counter-charges against petitioner for libel, falsification and per"ury and N2O
order dated ugust 2=, 199C which denied petitioner9s motion for partial reconsideration of said
"oint resolution/
;55R*( 8:n 4he 2ourts should respect Ombudsman9s findings/
3*HD(
Ees/ ;f the Ombudsman, using professional "udgment, finds the case dismissible, the 2ourt shall
respect such finding, unless clothed with grave abuse of discretion/ Otherwise, the courts will be
grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory
proceedings by the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it/ ;n much the same way,
the courts will be swamped with cases if they will have to review the e%ercise of discretion by
fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time the latter decide to file an information in court or
dismiss a complaint by a private complainant/
N1.O
4he 2onstitution and & =--. #the ?Ombudsman ct of 1969@$ endowed the Office of the
Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers, virtually free from
legislative, e%ecutive or "udicial intervention, in order to insulate it from outside pressure and
improper influence/
-/ 2orpuI v/ 5andiganbayan, A& 1=221C, <ov/ 11, 2..C
1acts(
4hat, during the period from 1, !ay 199C to .9 )une 199-, or for sometime prior or subsequent
thereto, in the 2ity 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% 2redit S Duty DrawbacD
2enter, Department of 1inance, !anila, while in the performance of their official functions and
acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and confederating with each other,
together with accused !onico V/ )acob, 2elso H/ Hegarda, bdulaIiI 1/ l-+hayyal, polinario A/
&eyes, &eynaldo V/ 2ampos and &afael 5/ DiaI, )r/, all officials of 'etron 2orporation, and
ntonio 3/ &oman, 5r/ and !arialen 2/ 2orpuI, both officers of 1ilsyn 2orporation, did then and
there unlawfully and &sic' recommend and criminally approve the transfer of the following 4a%
2redit 2ertificates purportedly issued to 1ilsyn 2orp/
;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
2ourt 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& <o/ 12B29=, )uly 2., 2..=
1245(
;n 1ebruary 1969, private respondents &osauro 4orralba and 2elestino 0andala charged
petitioners before the Deputy Ombudsman #Visayas$ for violation of & ,.19/ ;n their complaint,
private respondents accused petitioners of using their positions in 'H to secure a contract for
5ynergy 5ervices 2orporation, a corporation engaged in hauling and "anitorial services in which
they were shareholders/
'etitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds( #1$
the Ombudsman had no "urisdiction over them since 'H was a private entity and #2$ they were
not public officers, hence, outside the application of & ,.19/
;n a resolution dated )uly 1,, 1969,
N2O
the Deputy Ombudsman
N,O
denied petitioners9
omnibus motion to dismiss/
On petitioners9 first argument, he ruled that, although 'H was originally organiIed as a
private corporation, its controlling stocD was later acquired by the government through the
Aovernment 5ervice ;nsurance 5ystem #A5;5$/
NCO
4herefore, it became a government-owned or
controlled corporation #AO22$ as enunciated in (im)o v. *anodbayan.
NBO
On the second argument, the Deputy Ombudsman held that petitioners were public
officers within the definition of & ,.19, 5ection 2 #b$/ Rnder that provision, public officers
included ?elective, appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or e%empt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the
Aovernment/@
;55R*(
8:< the Ombudsman had no "urisdiction over 'H since it is a private entity/
3*HD(
Ees/ 4he Office of the Ombudsman e%ercises "urisdiction over public officials: employees
of AO22s wit+ original c+arters/ 4his being so, it can only investigate and prosecute acts or
omissions of the officials:employees of government corporations/ 4herefore, although the
government later on acquired the controlling interest in 'H, the fact remains that the latter did
not have an ?original charter@ and its officers:employees could not be investigated and:or
prosecuted by the Ombudsman/
9/ Ombudsman v/ *standarte, A& <o/ 1=6=-., pril 1,, 2..-
1245(
On ugust 1-, 1996, 'eople9s Araftwatch, through its 2hairman, Dr/ 'atricio E/ 4an,
referred to the Office of the Ombudsman #Visayas$, for immediate investigation, a
complaint of the 1aculty 2lub and Department 3eads of the &amon 4orres <ational 3igh
5chool #hereinafter the 1aculty 2lub$ against 3eidi *standarte, the school principal/ 4he
complaint consisted of ,, allegations of improprieties ranging from illegal handling of school
funds, irregular financial transactions, per"ury, and abuse of authority/
N2O
3owever, the complaint
was not subscribed and sworn to by the complainant, and not supported by the sworn statements
of witnesses/ 4he complaint also lacDed a statement of non-forum shopping as required under
252 &esolution <o/ 9B-,.99/ 4he Ombudsman #Visayas$ treated the matter as a request for
assistance, and docDeted the complaint as &5-V;5 96-1.,./
On ugust ,1, 1996, the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Department of *ducation,
2ulture and 5ports &egional Office V; #D*25-&egion V;$ and the 2ommission on udit #2O$ for
appropriate action pursuant to 5ection 1B#2$ of &epublic ct <o/ =--., otherwise Dnown as the
Ombudsman ct of 1969/ On 5eptember 29, 1996, the D*25-&egion V; found that the complaint
did not comply with the formalities under *%ecutive Order <o/ 292, otherwise Dnown as 4he
dministrative 2ode of 196-/ 4hus, it dismissed the complaint, without pre"udice to the filing of an
appropriate one/
Rndaunted, the 1aculty 2lub filed a formal complaint T sworn and subscribed to by the
complainants T with D*25-&egion V; on 1ebruary B, 1999/
NBO
3owever, in a
letter
N=O
dated 1ebruary 12, 1999, the said office dismissed the complaint outright for lacD of
verification and certification against forum shopping/
On !arch 22, 1999, the D*25-&egion V; received the requisite verification and certification/
N-O
4his case was entitled ?1aculty and Department 3eads of the &amon 4orres<ational 3igh
5chool, 0ago 2ity v/ 3eidi *standarte/
;55R*(
8hether or not the D*25 has e%clusive "urisdiction over the case
3*HD(4he petition has no merit/
4he "urisdiction of the Ombudsman over disciplinary cases against government employees, which
includes public school teachers, is vested by no less than 5ection 12, rticle >; of the
2onstitution/
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 any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taDen and the result thereof/

1./ Ombudsman v/ Hucero, <ovember 2C, 2..=
1245(
'etitioner 1arida 4/ Hucero was appointed as 2lerD ;; of the H4O, was reassigned, by virtue of a
!emorandum, to assist the &egional 2ashier in collecting and receiving miscellaneous
fees:revenues/
t the request of the O;2-&egional Director 'orferio ;/ !endoIa of the H4O, 2O conducted an
audit in the 2ash 5ection of the Operations Division of H4O, revealed 'etitioner to have issued
si%ty-nine #=9$ altered miscellaneous receipts/
Ombudsman #Visayas$ found the 'etitioner guilty of dishonesty/ On appeal, the appellate court
upheld the finding of the Ombudsman but declared that the Ombudsman had no authority to
order petitioner9s dismissal from the service/
;55R*(
8hether the Ombudsman is empowered to order the removal of public officials or employees in
administrative cases/
3*HD(
E*5/ 4he ombudsman act authoriIes the ombudsman to impose penalties in administrative
cases/ #0ernas, page CB,$
4he Office of the Ombudsman is empowered not merely to recommend, but to impose the
penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or
employee found to be at fault/
11/ Ombudsman v/ 2, A& <o/ 1=9.-9, )uly 1-, 2..-
1245(
4his is a 'etition for &eview

of the &esolution dated 12 !arch 2..B of the ;ntegrated 0ar of the
'hilippines #;0'$, dismissing petitioner 1rancisco &ayos9s complaint for disbarment against
respondent tty/ 'onciano 3ernandeI/
&espondent was the counsel of petitioner in 2ivil 2ase <o/ 5!-9B1 entitled, ,Francisco
-ayos v. .APOCO-,@ filed before the &egional 4rial 2ourt #&42$, !alolos, 0ulacan/ 4he case
was appealed to this 2ourt, which affirmed the 2ourt of ppeals Decision/ 4he Decision of the
5upreme 2ourt became final and e%ecutory on C ugust 199,/
4hus, a 8rit of *%ecution was issued by the &42 on 1. December 199,, upon motion filed
by respondent/ s a consequence, <'O2O& issued 2hecD <o/ .1C-1. dated B )anuary 199C,
in the amount of '1,.=.,6../.. payable to petitioner/ 4hereafter, the checD was turned over to
respondent as counsel of petitioner/ 'etitioner demanded the turn over of the checD from
respondent, but the latter refused/
On 2C )anuary 199C , petitioner filed with the &42 a motion to direct respondent to
deliver to him the checD issued by <'O2O&, corresponding to the damages awarded by the
2ourt of ppeals/ 'etitioner sought to recover the checD in the amount of '1,.=.,6../.. from
respondent, claiming that respondent had no authority to receive the same as he was already
dismissed by petitioner as his counsel on 21 <ovember 199,/ &espondent, on the other hand,
"ustifies his retention as a means to ensure payment of his attorney9s fees/
On - pril 199C, the &42 issued an Order directing respondent to deliver the checD to the
5heriff of the court who will subsequently deliver it to petitioner/ 8rit of *%ecution was
subsequently issued/ Despite the 2ourt Order, respondent refused to surrender the checD/
3owever, on C )uly 199C, respondent deposited the amount of 'B.2,6,6/-9 with 1armers
5avings and Hoan 0anD, ;nc/, <orIagaray, 0ulacan, in the name of petitioner which was
eventually received by the latter/
4hus, petitioner initiated this complaint for disbarment for the failure of respondent to
return the rest of the award in the amount of 'BB-,9=1/21/

;55R*( whether the stipulated attorney9s fees are unreasonable and
unconscionable under the circumstances of the case as to warrant a reduction thereof/
3*HD(
4he misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, renders him unworthy
to the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with
disbarment or suspension
4he court should also e%ercise a sound discretion in determining whether a lawyer should
be disbarred or merely suspended/ ;t should bear in mind that admission to the 0ar is obtained
only after years of labor and study and the office acquired often becomes the source of great
honor and emolument to its possessor/ 4o most members of the legal profession, it is a means of
support for themselves and their families/ 4o deprive one of such an office is often to decree
poverty to the lawyer and destitution to his family/
NC-O
Disbarment, therefore, should never be
decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end
desired/
NC6O


12/ 5angguniang 0arangay v/ 'unong 0arangay, A& <o/ 1-.=2=, !arch ,, 2..6
1245(
December 2..C T 5everino !artineI, 'unong 0arangay of 0arangay Don !ariano !arcos
#0ayombong, <ueva ViIacaya$ was administratively charged with Dishonesty, !isconduct in
Office and violation of the nti-Araft and 'ractices ct by petitioner #5anggunian 0arangay$
through the filing of a verified complaint before the 5angguniang 0ayan/
'ursuant to 5ection =1 of the HA2, the 50 is the disciplining authority over
elective barangay officials/
2harges, among others #= in all$ were for failure to submit and fully remit to the 0arangay
4reasurer the income of their solid waste management pro"ect particularly the sale of fertiliIer
and recyclable materials derived from composting and garbage collection/ 4here was also a
charge for failure to liquidate his travelling e%penses for the 2.., HaDbay-aral/
!artineI failed to file an nswer, thus was declared by 50 in default,
)uly 2..B - the 5angguniang 0ayan rendered its Decision which imposed the penalty of
removal from office/
ugust 2..B - 4he Decision was conveyed to the !unicipal !ayor #5everino 0agasao$ for its
implementation/ !ayor issued a !emorandum, stating that 50 is not empowered to order
!artineI9s removal from service/ 3owever, the Decision remains valid until reversed and
must be e%ecuted by him/
!artineI filed a 5pecial 2ivil ction for 2ertiorari with a prayer for 4&O and 'reliminary
;n"unction before the trial court against 50 and !ayor/
42 - Order of 50 null and void/ 4he proper courts, and not the petitioner, are empowered to
remove an elective local official from office, in accordance with 5ection =. of the Hocal
Aovernment 2ode/
;55R*( 8O< the 5angguniang 0ayan may remove !artineI, an elective local official, from office/
3*HD(
<O/ 52 affirmed &42/ '*4;4;O< D*<;*D/ 5ection =. of the Hocal Aovernment 2ode conferred
upon the courts the power to remove elective local officials from office( ?5ection =./ Arounds for
Disciplinary ctions/Ln elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from
office on any of the following grounds(
P
n elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order
of the proper court/
25* 4;4H*( 3;'OH;4O V/ !*&A5
19B 52& = N1991O
1245(
&espondent, *lmer &/ !ergas, a deputy sheriff of the &egional 4rial 2ourt, 0ranch C=, !anila
was charged by herein complainant !arisol 2/ 3ipolito, an applicant for a small scale mining
permit, on )anuary C, 199. in the Office of the 'rosecutor, 'rovince of 4arlac, with acts allegedly
amounting to the crime of swindling or estafa/
On )anuary 22, 1991, the investigating "udge submitted his report and recommendation/
4he investigating "udge submitted that the acts of respondent deputy sheriff are improper and not
conducive to the best interest of the service/ &espondent was held to have committed acts which
may be called FmoonlightingF and which are contrary to civil service rules and regulations/ 3e
observed that respondent is not supposed to be following up e%traneous matters outside !anila,
in other government offices and for private individuals, to the pre"udice of his worD in the "udiciary
as a deputy sheriff of the &egional 4rial 2ourt of !anila/ 2onsequently, his 3onor recommended
the penalty of suspension from office for a period of si% #=$ months without pay effective
immediately/
;55R*(
8hether or not respondent failed to observe and maintain that degree of dedication to the duties
and responsibilities required of him as a deputy sheriff/
3*HD(
Ees/ deputy sheriff, as an officer of the court whose duties form an integrated part of the
administration of "ustice, may be properly punished, even with a penalty short of dismissal or
suspension from office, by this tribunal which e%ercises administrative supervision over the
"udicial branch of the Aovernment, for an action committed in violation of the &ules of 2ourt and
which impedes and detracts from a fair and "ust administration of "ustice/
8hile FmoonlightingF is not normally considered as a serious misconduct, nonetheless, by the
very nature of the position held by respondent, it obviously amounts to a malfeasance in office/ ;n
sum, he is bound, virtteofficii, to bring to the discharge of his duties that prudence, caution and
attention which careful men usually e%ercise in the management of their own affairs/
1inally, public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline/ public servant must
e%hibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity/ 4his yardsticD has been imprinted in
the 19-, 2onstitution under 5ection 1 of rticle >;;;, thus( F'ublic office is a public trust/ 'ublic
officers and employment shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency and shall remain accountable to the people/F 4his is reiterated more emphatically in the
196- 2onstitution/
25* 4;4H*( 0O&<5H, )&/ V/ !O<4*5
26. 52& 161 N199-O
1245(
'etitioner charged respondent deputy sheriff with certain unauthoriIed acts relative to a petition
for e%tra"udicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage which was lodged at the petitioner7s office, by
virtue of ct <o/ ,11B, as amended, allowing e%tra"udicial foreclosure sales under the direction of
the petitioner, as E/0Oficio 5heriff/
On pril ,, 199=, in his 2omment, respondent deputy sheriff categorically admitted all the
accusations made by the petitioner against him in the latter7s letter-complaint/ 3owever, by way of
defense, respondent deputy sheriff invoDed good faith and declared that his issuance of the
<otice of 5heriff7s 5ale and its subsequent publication were prompted by the vehement request of
5pouses 2alderon #mortgagor$/
;55R*(
8hether or not the respondent9s unauthoriIed acts complained of constituted grave abuse of
authority and gross misconduct/
3*HD(
Ees/ ;t is evident from the record of this case that the defense of good faith under the
circumstances is unavailing/ s deputy sheriff, respondent could not have been honestly unaware
of the legal consequences of his act of effecting a notice of sheriff7s sale and its publication after a
withdrawal of the petition for e%tra"udicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage was submitted by
11D2 as petitioner:mortgagee/
&espondent deputy sheriff ought to have been guided by his superior7s advice regarding the
withdrawal of the sub"ect foreclosure case/ s the enforcement arm of the "udiciary, deputy
sheriffs must at all times be circumspect in the performance of their duties/ &espondent7s act of
signing the <otice of 5heriff7s 5ale apparently for and in behalf of his superior is a clear case of
insubordination and gross misconduct/ 3is alleged partiality in favor of the mortgagors to help
them settle their obligation cannot be countenanced by this 2ourt/
;t is beyond question that the administration of "ustice is a sacred tasD so that respondent deputy
sheriff, by the very nature of his duties and responsibilities, should have borne in mind that his
unauthoriIed acts were violative of the norms of public accountability, hence, contributory to the
diminishing image of the people7s faith in the )udiciary/
;n fine, in view of all the foregoing, we are in accord with O27s observation that the
Frespondent7s plea for forgiveness appears sincere and proceeds from a voluntary admission of
the charges from a repentant heartF so that this 2ourt tempers with mercy and compassion the
imposable penalty in the instant case/
25* 4;4H*( H!&;O V/ &*5R5
! <O/ '9C1.-=, N<ovember 22, 1999O
1245(
;n a letter-complaint filed on 2B ugust 199C, complainant )udge *nrique !/ lmario, then
'residing )udge of 0ranch 1B of the &egional 4rial 2ourt #&42$ of <aic, 2avite, charged 2lerD of
2ourt )ameswell&esus and 5tenographic &eporter <ora 5aclolo of his court with gross
misconduct in connection with H&2 2ases <os/ <2-CB, to CB6
0
and AH&O 2ase <o/ 6,C./
ccording to the complainant )udge, sometime on the first weeD of ugust 199C, tty/ 3erminio
Valerio, counsel for applicant 4rinidad *nriqueI in H&2 2ases <os/ <2-CB, to CB6, approached
him and manifested that he would file a motion for the taDing of deposition of the said applicant/
On 6 ugust 199C, respondent <ora 5aclolo brought to him the records of the said cases/ !uch
to his surprise, he saw a transcript of stenographic notes #hereafter 45<$ of an e/0)arte hearing
held in the morning of 22 !arch 199C in the office of respondent &esus wherein !rs/ *nriqueI
was said to have testified and later cross-e%amined by a representative of the Office of the
5olicitor Aeneral #O5A$/ 4he said 45< was neither signed nor certified to by respondent 5aclolo
but was, nevertheless, attached to the e/)ediente/ 4his prompted the complainant to conduct an
informal investigation at his chambers to determine what actually happened on 22 !arch 199C/
;n a 5upplemental 2omplaint, complainant )udge also charged both respondents with falsification
of the 45< in AH&O 2ase <o/ 6,C. by maDing it appear that a hearing in that case was held on 6
)une 199C/
;55R*(
8hether or not respondents 5aclolo and &esus guilty of grave misconduct and conduct
pre"udicial to the best interest of the service/
3*HD(
Ees/ !isconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior of gross negligence by the public officer/ 4o warrant dismissal from
the service, the misconduct must be serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling/ ;t
must also have direct relation to, and be connected with, the performance of official duties
amounting either to maladministration or willful, intention neglect or failure to discharge the duties
of the office/
;t is not disputed that no hearing tooD place on 22 !arch 199C/ 4his notwithstanding, 5aclolo
attached the said 45< to the records of the cases and presented it to the )udge, instead of
disregarding it/
4o the mind of the 2ourt, there was a clear conspiracy to fabricate the transcript of stenographic
notes of an alleged reception of evidence/
3ence, 5aclolo deserves to be dismissed from the service for her grave misconduct in preparing
in advance a 45< of a hearing yet to taDe place and inserting it into the records of the case even
though the hearing did not push through/ 4he fact that she did not affi% her signature thereon or
certify to the truth or correctness thereof is of no moment/ s aptly opined by the O2, her acts
were violative of the very essence of a 45<, which is supposed to be a faithful and e%act
recording of all matters that transpire during a court proceeding/ 4o tolerate such acts would open
the floodgates to fraud by, or graft and corruption of, "udges and court personnel/
s for respondent &esus, even assuming argendo that he did not have a hand in the
preparation of the sub"ect 45<, he must be held answerable for willfully turning a blind eye on
5aclolo7s acts of preparing the said 45< in advance and attaching it to the records of the H&2
cases/ 3e admitted having received from 5aclolo a copy of that 45</0ut, despite the fact that the
hearing on 22 !arch 199C did not push through, he never questioned 5aclolo about that 45<K
instead, he allowed that 45< to remain attached to the records of the H&2 cases/ <or did he
report such irregularity or anomaly to complainant )udge/ 0eing the administrative officer of the
court and having the control and supervision over all court records,he cannot "ust wash his hands
now and go scot-free/ ;n short, he cannot even claim simple neglect of duty/ 4he circumstances
attending the irregularity or impropriety herein charged demonstrated beyond doubt &esus7
deliberate participation in its commission or perpetration/
s a clerD of court, &esus is specifically mandated to safeguard the integrity of the court and its
proceedings, and to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records/ 3is willful and
intentional failure to obey this mandate constituted grave misconduct or conduct highly pre"udicial
to the best interest of the service, which warrants dismissal from the service/
25* 4;4H*( )R< V/ '*O'H*
A& 1,2,-6, )anuary 16, 2...
1245(
'etitioners &ogelio )uan, 0arangay 2hairman and 'edro de )esus, Delfin2arreon, and ntonio
Aalguerra, 0arangay +agawads, of 0arangay 4alipapa, <ovaliches, MueIon 2ity, were separately
accused in 2riminal 2ases M-9=-=CB=C to ==, for violation of 5ection 2=1-#o$ of the Omnibus
*lection 2ode, before the &egional 4rial 2ourt, 0ranch 9=, <ational 2apital )udicial &egion,
MueIon 2ity/ 0arangay 2hairman )uan, and 0gy/ +agawad De )esus were charged NwithO willful
and unlawful use of V31 radio transceiver, an equipment or apparatus owned by the barangay
government of 4alipapa, <ovaliches, MueIon 2ity, for election campaign or for partisan political
activity/ nd 0arangay +agawads2arreon and Aalguerra were charged with willful and unlawful
use of a tricycle owned by the same barangay government in their political campaigns/
&odolfo 2ayubit and &icardo Aalguerra, representing themselves as Fwitnesses:private
complainants,F assisted by tty/ Heonides 5/ 0ernabe, )r/, representing himself as F'rivate
'rosecutor,F filed a F!otion for &emoval from Office,F dated December B, 199=, for the removal of
said local elective officials, to which herein petitioners filed their comment, on the ground that
movants have no legal standing in court, and neither was the public prosecutor notified of the
motion to which he did not conform, and therefore, said motion should be e%punged or stricDen
out from the records, or peremptorily denied/
;n a !anifestation and 2omment to the accused-petitioners7 comment, the 2O!*H*2 prosecutor
stated that he FconformsF with the sub"ect motion of private complainants, hence, respectfully
submitNsO the same for the ruling of the court, followed by a 5upplement to !otion for &emoval
from Office, dated 1ebruary 26, 199-, to which petitioners also filed their opposition/
On pril ,, 199-, respondent court issued an Order, directing the F/ / / immediate suspension from
office of all the accused / / / for a period of si%ty #=.$ days from service of this Order/@
;55R*(
8hether or not cases charged against petitioners are not sub"ect to 5ection 1, of & ,.19, the
nti-Araft and 2orrupt 'ractices ct, which mandates the preventive suspension of indicted
public officials/
3*HD(
Ees/ 'etitioners were accused of using barangay property for election campaign purposes and
other partisan political activities during their incumbency as barangay officials, in violation of
5ection 2=1 #o$ of the Omnibus *lection 2ode/
4rue, the cases against petitioners involve violations of the *lection 2odeK however, the charges
are not unidimensional/ *very law must be read together with the provisions of any other
complementing law, unless both are otherwise irreconcilable/ ;t must be emphasiIed that
petitioners were incumbent )blic officers charged with the nat+ori%ed and nlawfl se of
government )ro)erty in their custody, in the pursuit of personal interests/ 4he crime being
imputed to them is aDin to that committed by public officers as laid down in the &evised 'enal
2ode/ 2ertainly, petitioners7 acts constitute fraud against the governmentK thus, the present case
is covered by 5ection 1, of & ,.19/
4he aforementioned )roviso reinforces the principle that a public office is a public trust/ ;ts
purpose is to prevent the accused public officer from hampering his prosecution by intimidating or
influencing witnesses, tampering with documentary evidence, or committing further acts of
malfeasance while in office/'reventive suspension is not a penaltyKpetitioners, whose culpability
remains to be proven, are still entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence/
25* 4;4H*( &*( 8OH O1 <4O<;O !2H;<4H
! 99-11-.=-52, 1ebruary 1B, 2...
1245(
1or consideration is a !emorandum dated October 1,, 1999 of tty/ HuIviminda D/ 'uno, 2lerD
of 2ourt *n 0anc, reporting the unauthoriIed absences of !r/ ntonio 0/ !acalintal, 'rocess
5erver of the Office of the 2lerD of 2ourt en banc/
4he records reveal that !r/ !acalintal filed applications for leave which were not signed by his
immediate supervisor/ 3e was, thus, considered absent without official leave #8OH$ for those
days/ 3e also incurred absences without filing leave application for several days/ ;n fact, his
absences amounted to 1C9 days in the year 1999 alone/
ccordingly, on October 1,, 1999, 2lerD of 2ourt *n 0anc tty/ HuIviminda D/ 'uno issued a
memorandum informing !r/ ntonio 0/ !acalintal of the dates of his unauthoriIed absences and
directing him to e%plain why he should not be dismissed from the service for habitual absences
without official leave/
;n his answer dated October 21, 1999, !r/ ntonio 0/ !acalintal admitted having incurred
absences/ 3e e%plained that he was suffering from illness and financial difficulties/
On <ovember 1=, 1999 !r/ !acalintal submitted a supplemental answer, stating that since his
employment with the 5upreme 2ourt in 19-B, he had not been involved in any offense/ 3e also
alleged that his present financial difficulties worsened when his salaries and other benefits were
withheld by virtue of his unauthoriIed absences/
3ence, he prayed that the withheld salaries be given to him and that he be spared from the strict
implementation of the penalty for his absenteeism, promising to be more punctual in reporting for
worD in the future/
;55R*(
8hether or not !r/ !acalintalis guilty of malfeasance in office, for unauthoriIed habitual
absenteeism/
3*HD(
Ees/ 0y his habitual absenteeism, !r/ !acalintal has caused inefficiency in the public service/
lthough the 2ourt understands his plight, it does not e%cuse his total disregard of his official
duties/ 4ime and again, the 2ourt has pronounced that any act which falls short of the e%acting
standards 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 time
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty
and efficiency/
!r/ ntonio 0/ !acalintalis guilty of malfeasance in office for habitual absenteeism/ Rnder 5ection
B. of !emorandum 2ircular <o/ C1, series of 1996, an official or employee who is absent without
approved leave shall not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the period of his
unauthoriIed leave of absence/
4he 2ourt orders his 5R5'*<5;O< for si% #=$ months and one #1$ day without pay, commencing
upon notice of this resolution/
25* 4;4H*( *54&*HH V/ 5<D;A<0E<
A& 12B1=., )une 2., 2...
1245(
4his is a petition for review on certiorari seeDing reversal of the Decisionof the 5andiganbayan
dated )une ,, 199=, in 2riminal 2ase <o/ 129=., convicting petitioner <icanor */ *strella of the
crime of malversation of public funds as defined and penaliIed under rticle 21-#C$ of the
&evised 'enal 2ode/
4hat on or about !arch 16, 196=, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the municipality of
;sulan, 'rovince of 5ultan +udarat, and within the "urisdiction of the respondent9s 2ourt, the
above-named accused, a public officer, being then the !unicipal 2ashier in the above-stated
municipality, and as such is accountable and responsible for public funds entrusted to him by
reason of his position, with grave abuse of confidence and taDing advantage of his public position
as such, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, embeIIle and taDe
away from said public funds the total amount of 4wo 3undred *ighteen 4housand 4hree 3undred
1orty-nine 'esos and 99:1.. #'216,,C9/99$, 'hilippine 2urrency, which is misappropriated and
converted to his own personal use, to the damage and pre"udice of the government in the
aforestated amount/
;55R*(
8hether or not the 5andiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of malversation/
3*HD(
<o/ rticle 21- of the &evised 'enal 2ode holds liable for malversation a public officer who shall
appropriate public funds or property for which he is accountable, or shall taDe or misappropriate
or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to taDe
such public funds or property/ 1urthermore, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming
any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authoriIed
officer, shall be )rima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal
uses/
4he elements of malversation of public funds are #a$ the offender is a public officer, #b$ he had
custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, #c$ these funds or
property were public funds or property for which he was accountable, and #d$ that he
appropriated, tooD, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to taDe them/
NC2O
nent the last element, we have held that to "ustify
conviction for malversation of public funds, the prosecution has only to prove that the accused
received public funds or property and that he could not account for them or did not have them in
his possession and could not give a reasonable e%cuse for the disappearance of the same/ n
accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he has
not been able to e%plain satisfactorily/
'etitioner was not able to produce the missing amount of '191,=C./99K and neither was he able
to e%plain his failure to produce that amount/ side from petitioner9s feeble attempt to shift the
blame to the audit team, nothing in the records of this case supports his allegation that the audit
team had committed an error in the &eport of 2ash *%amination/
25* 4;4H*( !H05 V/ 0H<2O
/! '99-1,B., December 12, 2..1
1245(
;n a sworn complaint dated ugust 2=, 199=, complainants accused 5heriff <icanor 0/ 0lanco
and two other unidentified sheriffs of the &egional 4rial 2ourt, ntipolo 2ity, &iIal of violation of
the 2onstitution #rticle ;;;, 5ection 1$ and of acting beyond their authority in connection with the
implementation of a writ of demolition/
4here are two #2$ cases involved in thisK complaint/
One is 2ivil 2ase <o/ 11-C, entitled 2hemical 1ibers, ;nc/ v/ 'erry !albas, for e"ectment and
damages/
4he other is 2ivil 2ase <o/ 1169, entitled 2hemical 1ibers, ;nc/ v/ 1eddy!albas, et al, also for
e"ectment and damages/
On ugust =, 199=, the !unicipal 4rial 2ourt, 4aytay, &iIal issued a writ of demolitionin 2ivil 2ase
<o/ 1169/
On ugust 6, 199=, 5heriff 'aulo !/ Aatlabayan sent a noticeto vacate to 3ospisia 3/ )ovillanos
and other occupants of the land by virtue of the writ of demolition/
'reviously however, on 1ebruary 1, 199=, complainants sent a letter to 5heriff Aatlabayan
informing him that they were not the defendants in 2ivil 2ase <o/ 9,-,2.6 #2ivil 2ase <o/ 1169 in
!42$ but in 2ivil 2ase <o/ 9,-2619 #2ivil 2ase <o/ 11-C in !42$/ 4he latter case was the
sub"ect of a petition pending with the 2ourt of ppeals/
On ugust 1,, 199=, at about 9(CB a/ m/, respondent sheriffs arrived at 5itio5agingan, 0arangay
Dolores, 4aytay, &iIal with about thirty #,.$ armed men and more than a hundred civilians/
2omplainants brought to the attention of the respondents that not all residents of the sub"ect
property were defendants in 2ivil 2ase <o/ 1169, and if respondents would demolish the
improvements within the area, those belonging to the complainants should not be included/
1urther, complainants informed respondents that they were defendants in 2ivil 2ase <o/ 11-C,
which was pending with the 5upreme 2ourt/
Despite this, respondent sheriffs demolished all the houses in the area including the houses of
the complainants/s a result, complainants7 belongings were destroyed, stolen or lost/ nd since
respondents continued to demolish the houses despite the heavy rains, complainants7 children
suffered from various form of illnesses/
On ugust 2=, 199=, complainants filed with the 5upreme 2ourt the instant complaint against
<icanor 0/ 0lanco, )ohn Doe, and &ichard Doe, 5heriffs, &egional 4rial 2ourt, 1ourth )udicial
&egion, ntipolo, &iIal/
;55R*(
8hether or not respondents committed grave misconduct, oppression and conducted themselves
in a manner highly pre"udicial to the best interest of the service/
3*HD(
Ees/ 5heriff 0lanco cannot feign ignorance of the fact that complainants were not parties to the
case in which the writ of e%ecution was issued/ &espondents cannot escape liability by claiming
that they relied on the misrepresentations of the representatives of 2hemical 1ibers, the
prevailing party/
5heriff Aatlabayan was not principally authoriIed to enforce the writ of e%ecution/ 3e was not the
assigned sheriff/ <onetheless, he assisted the sheriff in the e%ecution of the writ/ 4hus, he was as
guilty as 5heriff 0lanco in depriving the complainants of their constitutionally protected rights/ 4he
failure to verify complainant7s allegation manifests blatant irresponsibility and they must be meted
out with the appropriate penalty/ 2omplainants were sub"ected to unnecessary damages that
respondents could not compensate with any monetary consideration/
0y their acts, respondents committed grave misconduct, oppression and conducted themselves
in a manner highly pre"udicial to the best interest of the service/ 4he 2ourt has held that all those
involved in the administration of "ustice must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the
principle solemnly enshrined in the 2onstitution that a public office is a public trust/ ny act or
omission on their part, which violates the norms of public accountability or even merely tends to
diminish the faith of the people in the "udiciary, must be condemned and not countenanced/
;n the enforcement of "udgments and writs, a sheriff must Dnow what is inherently right and wrong
and is bound to act with prudence and caution/ !oreover, he must at all times show a high
degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties/
1or serious misconduct and grave abuse of authority, respondents do not deserve to remain in
the "udicial service/ 4he wrongful acts cannot go unpunished/
4he 2ourt finds respondents <icanor 0/ 0lanco and 'aulo !/ Aatlabayan, both sheriffs of the
&egional 4rial 2ourt, ntipolo &iIal, guilty of grave misconduct and gross abuse of authority, and
hereby D;5!;55*5 them from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits e%cept earned leave
credits, if any, with pre"udice to re-employment in any branch or office of the government,
including government-owned and controlled corporations/
25* 4;4H*( !<O;5 V/ H*O!O
! !4)-.,-1C92, ug/ 2=, 2..,
1245(
2omplainant alleged that he is a member of the 'hilippine <ational 'olice #'<'$ assigned as the
2hief of the 4raffic !anagement Office in Olongapo 2ity/ 5ometime in ugust, 1996, his office
received a bench warrant of arrest dated ugust 12, 1996 against one &owena 2/ 2orpuI,
accused in 2riminal 2ase <o/ 9--.,9. for estafa then pending before the &egional 4rial 2ourt,
0ranch 2B,, Has'iJas 2ity/ On ugust 2B, 1996, at about 9(,. /!/, &owena appeared at his
office inquiring about a motor vehicle clearance/ &emembering her name as the sub"ect of the
warrant of arrest, he asDed if she has a pending case in the said court/ 5he answered in the
affirmative/ 4hereupon, he showed her a copy of the warrant and declared that she is under
arrest/ ;mmediately, she rushed out of the office and approached her companion who happened
to be )udge HaveIares 2/ Heomo, herein respondent, waiting inside a car/ 5he returned,
accompanied by respondent, to complainant9s office/ &espondent then confronted complainant,
asDing why &owena should be arrested/ 8hen complainant e%plained that being an officer of the
law it is his duty to enforce the warrant of arrest, respondent grabbed &owena9s hand and both
left hurriedly/ t around C(.. '/!/ of that day, respondent phoned complainant, informing him that
he #respondent$ has turned over &owena to the '<' at 2astille"os, Gambales and that he would
notify the presiding "udge of the &42, 0ranch 2B,, Has 'iJas 2ity accordingly/ Hater, complainant
learned that respondent has been Fe%tending special treatmentF to &owena because the two Fare
very special friends/F
On the basis of complainant9s report and 'rosecutor 2astillo9s motion, the &42 issued an
Order
,
dated 5eptember 9, 1996 requiring respondent to e%plain why he should not be cited in
contempt of court for committing the acts complained of/
;n retaliation, so complainant claimed, respondent issued an Order
C
dated 5eptember 1., 1996
#without any case number$, requiring him to e%plain within three #,$ days why he should not be
cited in contempt of court for submitting a false report, particularly paragraph B of his
memorandum/
During the 5eptember 1=, 1996 hearing, complainant failed to appear/ 3ence, respondent "udge
issued a bench warrant of arrestagainst him/ 4his prompted complainant, through his counsel,
tty/ *stanislao2esa, )r/, to file with the &42 of Olongapo 2ity 2ivil 2ase <o/ ,=B-.-96 for
prohibition and in"unction/ ;n due course, the court en"oined the enforcement of the bench warrant
against complainant/
;n a !anifestationdated 1ebruary 2,, 1999, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint,
the same being Fa product of a previous misunderstandingF between the parties and that they
Fhave already patched up their differences,F as attested to by complainant in his ffidavit of
Desistance #attached to the !anifestation$/
;55R*(
8hether or not respondent9s acts constitute grave misconduct, obstruction of "ustice, and abuse
of "udicial authority, warranting his dismissal from the service/
3*HD(
Ees/ ;t bears stressing that disciplinary actions against public officers and employees, including
those in the )udiciary, do not involve purely private or personal matters/ 4heir office is imbued
with public interest as provided by 5ection 1, rticle >; of the 2onstitution/
3ence, administrative actions are not made to depend upon the will of every complainant who
may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act/ 4he settled rule is that the
complainant9s withdrawal of his complaint or desistance from pursuing the same, does not
necessarily warrant the dismissal of the administrative case/ 2ertainly, complainant9s desistance
cannot divest us of our "urisdiction under 5ection =, rticle V;;; of the 2onstitution, to investigate
and decide complaints against erring employees of the "udiciary/ 5tated otherwise, such unilateral
act does not bind us on a matter relating to our disciplinary power/
2onsequently, the 2ourt disregards the complainant9s affidavit of desistance, especially because
on 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/ &espondent9s defense that he later
surrendered &owena to the '<' of 2astille"os, Gambales deserves scant consideration/ 3e had
already prevented the enforcement by complainant of the warrant of arrest against her/
0y preventing &owena9s arrest, respondent also unduly interfered in the criminal proceedings
against &owena/ 2ertainly, such conduct caused unnecessary delay in the administration of
"ustice of which respondent is duty-bound to uphold/ lso, he caused pre"udice to the interests of
the 5tate and the complaining witness/
&espondent "udge9s un"ustified interference in the enforcement of a warrant of arrest constitutes
gross misconduct which can erode public confidence in the "udiciary, for it is the duty of a "udge to
uphold and respect the law, not to violate it/
)udge HV*G&*5 2/ H*O!O is found AR;H4E of A&O55 !;52O<DR24 and of violating
2anon 2 of the 2ode of )udicial 2onduct and is D;5!;55*D from the service, with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits, e%cluding the accrued leave credits, and with pre"udice to reemployment in
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations/
25* 4;4H*( &*( A;D*O< H;0<A
! 2..,-11-52 )une 1B, 2..C
1245(
!emorandum dated !arch ,., 2..Cof tty/ *den 4/ 2andelaria, Deputy 2lerD of 2ourt and 2hief
dministrative Officer, recommends administrative sanction upon Aideon !/ libang, 0uilding
and Around !aintenance 3ead 0 of the 3all of )ustice, Davao 2ity, who incurred habitual
tardiness during the first semester of 2..,/
On pril 1C, 2..,, the Heave Division of this 2ourt, in its &eport of 4ardiness, informed tty/
2andelaria that libang committed tardiness 1, times in )anuary 2.., and 11 times in 1ebruary
2..,/ 1orthwith, tty/ 2andelaria required him to e%plain in writing within five days from notice
why no disciplinary action should be taDen against him/
;n his comment dated )anuary 1C, 2..C,libang a$"itte$ having incurred habitual tardiness for
the same duration/ 3e e%plained that on December 1., 2..2, his wife gave birth to their third
child/ Hater that month, their house helper left them/ 1or two months he was forced to do all the
household chores before reporting for worD/ dding to his woes then was the heavy traffic caused
by the construction of 0uhangin underpass, thus taDing him a longer time to travel to his office/
3e asDed for consideration and apologiIed for his belated e%planation/
;n the same !emorandum, tty/ 2andelaria recommended that libang be REPRIMANDED for
first incursion of habitual tardiness in the first semester of year 2..,/ HiDewise, he too must be
reminded 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 be
recommended for administrative sanction/
3*HD(
Ees/ 252 !emorandum 2ircular <o/ C, s/1991provides that Fn employee shall be considered
habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten #1.$ times a
month for at least two #2$ months in a semester or at least two #2$ consecutive months during the
year/F
Rnder 5ection B2 #2$ #C$, &ule ;V #'enalties$ of 252 !emorandum 2ircular <o/ 19,
s/1999,habitual tardiness is penaliIed as follows(
F1irst Offense - &eprimand
5econd Offense - 5uspension for 1-,. days
4hird Offense - DismissalF
Rndoubtedly, libang9s habitual tardiness is reprehensible/ 4he 2ourt cannot countenance such
infraction for it seriously impairs efficiency and hampers public service/ 0y being habitually tardy,
respondent fell short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected
with the civil service, specially the administration of "ustice/ 4he 2ourt has ruled that by reason of
the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the )udiciary must be role
models in the faithful observance of the constitutional cannon that public office is a public trust/
;nherent in this mandate are the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of
every moment thereof for public service/
4hus, to inspire public respect for the "ustice system, the 2ourt emphasiIed in dministrative
2ircular <o/ 1-99 the need for court officials and employees to Fstrictly observe official time/ s
punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible/F ;n dministrative 2ircular
<o/ 2-99, we stressed that Fbsenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as Uhabitual9 or
Ufrequent9 under the 252 !emorandum 2ircular <o/ C, 5eries of 1991, shall be dealt with
severely/
@ideon <. liban$, 6uildin$ and @round <aintenance Cead 6 of the Calls of
>ustice, Davao City is hereby REPRI*ANDED and =a#ned that a repetition
of the same act will be dealt with more severely.
25* 4;4H*( 0+D V/ 'R&;5;!
B=2 52& 2B1N2..6O
1245(
& 9,,B was enacted to optimiIe the revenue-generation capability and collection of the 0ureau
of ;nternal &evenue #0;&$ and the 0ureau of 2ustoms #0O2$/ 4he law intends to encourage 0;&
and 0O2 officials and employees to e%ceed their revenue targets by providing a system of
rewards and sanctions through the creation of a &ewards and ;ncentives 1und #1und$ and a
&evenue 'erformance *valuation 0oard #0oard$/ ;t covers all officials and employees of the 0;&
and the 0O2 with at least si% months of service, regardless of employment status/
4he 1und is sourced from the collection of the 0;& and the 0O2 in e%cess of their revenue
targets for the year, as determined by the Development 0udget and 2oordinating 2ommittee
#D022$/ ny incentive or reward is taDen from the fund and allocated to the 0;& and the 0O2 in
proportion 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 the
constitutionally mandated duty of these officials and employees to serve the people with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency/
3*HD(
<o/ 'ublic office is a public trust/ ;t must be discharged by its holder not for his own personal gain
but for the benefit of the public for whom he holds it in trust/ 0y demanding accountability and
service with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism and "ustice, all government
officials and employees have the duty to be responsive to the needs of the people they are called
upon to serve/
'ublic officers en"oy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties/ 4his
presumption necessarily obtains in favor of 0;& and 0O2 officials and employees/ & 9,,B
operates on the basis thereof and reinforces it by providing a system of rewards and sanctions for
the purpose of encouraging the officials and employees of the 0;& and the 0O2 to e%ceed their
revenue targets and optimiIe their revenue-generation capability and collection/
4he presumption is disputable but proof to the contrary is required to rebut it/ ;t cannot be
overturned by mere con"ecture or denied in advance #as petitioners would have the 2ourt do$
specially in this case where it is an underlying principle to advance a declared public policy/
'etitioners9 claim that the implementation of & 9,,B will turn 0;& and 0O2 officials and
employees into Fbounty hunters and mercenariesF is not only without any factual and legal basisK
it is also purely speculative/
law enacted by 2ongress en"oys the strong presumption of constitutionality/ 4o "ustify its
nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the 2onstitution, not a doubtful and
equivocal one/4o invalidate & 9,,B based on petitioners9 baseless supposition is an affront to
the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the e%ecutive which approved it/
'ublic service is its own reward/ <evertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded for
e%emplary and e%ceptional performance/ system of incentives for e%ceeding the set
e%pectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public accountability/ ;n fact, it
recogniIes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of
deserving government personnel/
25* 4;4H*( 5HR!0;D*5 V/ O!0RD5!<
A& 16.91-, pril 2,, 2.1.
1245(
'etitioners Vicente 5alumbides, )r/ #5alumbides$ and Alenda raJa #Alenda$ challenge the
October 11, 2..- Decision and the December 1,, 2..- &esolution of the 2ourt of ppeals
1
in
2-A/&/ 5' <o/ 9=669 affirming the Office of the Ombudsman7s decision finding them guilty of
5imple <eglect of Duty/
5alumbides and Alenda were appointed in )uly 2..1 as !unicipal Hegal Officer:dministrator
and !unicipal 0udget Officer, respectively, of 4agDawayan, MueIon/
4owards the end of 2..1, !ayor Vicente 5alumbides ;;; #the mayor$ saw the urgent need to
construct a two-classroom building with fence #the pro"ects$ for the 4agDawayan !unicipal 3igh
5chool
2
#4!35$ since the public school in the poblacion area would no longer admit high school
freshmen starting school year 2..2-2..,/ On how to solve the classroom shortage, the mayor
consulted 5alumbides who suggested that the construction of the two-classroom building be
charged to the account of the !aintenance and Other Operating *%penses: &epair and
!aintenance of 1acilities #!OO*:&!1$ and implemented Fby administration,F as had been done
in a previous classroom building pro"ect of the former mayor/
Rpon consultation, Alenda advised 5alumbides in December 2..1, that there were no more
available funds that could be taDen from the !OO*:&!1, but the savings of the municipal
government were adequate to fund the pro"ects/ 5he added, however, that the approval by
the Sanggniang 1ayan of a proposed supplemental budget must be secured/
4he members of the Sanggniang 1ayan having already gone on recess for the 2hristmas
holidays, Alenda and 5alumbides advised the mayor to source the funds from the '1,...,...
!OO*:&!1 allocation in the approved !unicipal nnual 0udget for 2..2/
4he mayor thus ordered on )anuary 6, 2..2 !unicipal *ngineer )ose quino #quino$ to proceed
with the construction of the pro"ects based on the program of worD and bill of materials he
#quino$ prepared with a total cost estimate of '222,.../
Rpon advice of !unicipal 'lanning and Development Officer 3ernan )ason #)ason$, the mayor
included the pro"ects in the list of local government pro"ects scheduled for bidding on )anuary 2B,
2..2 which, together with the )anuary ,1, 2..2 public bidding, failed/
4he mayor was to admit later his e%pectation or assumption of risD on reimbursement/
4he construction of the pro"ects commenced without any approved appropriation and ahead of
the public bidding/ 5alumbides was of the opinion that the pro"ects were regular and legal, based
on an earlier pro"ect that was Fimplemented in the same manner, using the same source of fund
and for the same reason of urgencyF which was allowed Fbecause the building was considered
merely temporary as the 4!35 is set to be transferred to an 6-hectare lot which the municipal
government is presently negotiating to buy/F
!eanwhile, quino suggested to the Sanggniang 1ayan the adoption of Fmodel guidelinesF in
the implementation of infrastructure pro"ects to be e%ecuted Fby administration,F while 2ouncilor
2oleta5andro #2oleta$ sponsored a &esolution to ratify the pro"ects and to authoriIe the mayor to
enter into a negotiated procurement/ 0oth actions did not merit the approval of the Sanggniang
1ayan/
On !ay 1,, 2..2, herein respondents &icardo gon, &amon Villasanta, *lmer DiIon, 5alvador
dul and gnes 1abian, all members of the 5angguniang 0ayan of 4agDawayan, filed with the
Office of the Ombudsman a complaintagainst 5alumbides and Alenda #hereafter petitioners$, the
mayor, 2oleta, )ason and quino/
;55R*(
8hether or not petitioners failed to give attention to a tasD e%pected from an employee and can
be punished under the law/
3*HD(
Ees/ 5imple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a tasD e%pected
from 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 care
and prudence in ascertaining the legal requirements and fiscal soundness of the pro"ects before
stamping their imprimatur and giving their advice to their superior/
4he appellate court correctly ruled that as municipal legal officer, petitioner 5alumbides Ffailed to
uphold the law and provide a sound legal assistance and support to the mayor in carrying out the
delivery of basic services and provisions of adequate facilities when he advised Nthe mayorO to
proceed with the construction of the sub"ect pro"ects without prior competitive bidding/Fs pointed
out by the Office of the 5olicitor Aeneral, to absolve 5alumbides is tantamount to allowing with
impunity the giving of erroneous or illegal advice, when by law he is precisely tasDed to advise the
mayor on Fmatters related to upholding the rule of law/F;ndeed, a legal officer who renders a legal
opinion on a course of action without any legal basis becomes no different from a lay person who
may approve the same because it appears "ustified/
s regards petitioner Alenda, the appellate court held that the improper use of government funds
upon the direction of the mayor and prior advice by the municipal legal officer did not relieve her
of liability for willingly cooperating rather than registering her written ob"ection as municipal
budget officer/
5imple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay
for one month and one day to si% months/ 1inding no alleged or established circumstance to
warrant the imposition of the ma%imum penalty of si% months, the 2ourt finds the imposition of
suspension without pay for three months "ustified/
8hen a public officer taDes an oath of office, he or she binds himself or herself to faithfully
perform the duties of the office and use reasonable sDill and diligence, and to act primarily for the
benefit 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/ 1or 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 and
responsibilities, public officers and employees must faithfully adhere to hold sacred and render
inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trustK and must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency/
4he 2ourt finds the petitioners Vicente5alumbides, )r/ and Alenda raJa, guilty of simple neglect
of duty and are to be suspended from office for three #,$ months without pay/
Section 12. Prompt Action on Complaints
4% L#/re. )% Des(ert*, GR N*% 456789, Apr(. 4', '::'
F#-tsPetitioner 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 as
the Chairman of <$poCorp.# and was one of the nine 5=6 incorporators. !
controversy erupted on the alleged anomalies with the bidding contracts to some
entities and the petitioner was implicated. By virtue of an investigation
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman# the petitioner was indicted for
alleged violation of the !nti(&raft and Corrupt Practices !ct 5.! 423=6. "he
petitioner filed a :otion to Dismiss *uestioning the ,urisdiction of the Office of
the Ombudsman# which was denied. He further filed a motion for
reconsideration which was also denied# hence this petition for certiorari.
"he petitioner assails the ,urisdiction of the Ombudsman and contended that he
is not a public officer since <$poCorp is a private corporation.
Iss/e %J) the Ombudsman has ,urisdiction over the case of the petitionerG
HELD Kes# the Ombudsman has ,urisdiction over the case of the petitioner
since he is a public officer. "he )CC is an office performing e$ecutive
functions since one of its mandate is to implement national policies. :oreover#
the said office was established by virtue of an e$ecutive order. +t is clear that the
)CC performs sovereign functions# hence it is a public office. Since petitioner
is chair of the )CC# he is therefore a public officer. "he fact that the )CC was
characteri'ed by <O 31> as an Lad(hoc bodyL maBe it less of a public office.
-inally# the fact that the petitioner did not receive any compensation during his
tenure is of no conse*uence since such is merely an incidence and forms no part
of the office.
'% A.1*nte )% V#s;/e<, '55 SCRA '98 &4==6+
F#-ts
"his is a case wherein respondent Ombudsman# re*uires petitioners
)erio.ogado and <lisa .ivera# as chief accountant and record custodian#
respectively# of the <conomic +ntelligence and +nvestigation Bureau 5<++B6 to
produce Eall documents relating to Personal Services -unds for the year 3=>>E
and all evidence such as vouchers from enforcing his orders.
Petitioner !lmonte was formerly Commissioner of the <++B# while Pere' is
Chief of the <++BLs Budget and -iscal :anagement Division. "he subpoena
ducestecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection with his investigation
of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings from unfilled
positions in the <++B had been illegally disbursed. "he letter# purporting to have
been written by an employee of the <++B and a concerned citi'en# was addressed
to the Secretary of -inance# with copies furnished several government offices#
including the Office of the Ombudsman.
:ay be erased H"he letter reads in pertinent parts that the <++B has a syndicate
headed by the Chief of Budget Division who is manipulating funds and also the
brain of the so called Eghost agentsE or the E<mergency +ntelligence !gentsE
5<+!6D that when the agency had salary differential last Oct L>> all money for the
whole plantilla were released and from that alone# :illions were saved and
converted to ghost agents of <+!D !lmost all <++B agents collects payroll from
the big time smuggler syndicate monthly and broBers every weeB for them not
to be apprehended.I
+n his comment on the letter(complaint# petitioner !lmonte denied all the
allegations written on the anonymous letter. Petitioners move to *uash the
subpoena and the subpoena ducestecum but was denied.
Disclosure of the documents in *uestion is resisted with the claim of privilege of
an agency of the government on the ground that EBnowledge of <++BLs
documents relative to its Personal Services -unds and its plantilla . . . will
necessarily Hlead toI Bnowledge of its operations# movements# targets# strategies#
and tactics and the whole of its beingE and this could Edestroy the <++B.E
Iss/e
%hether petitioners can be ordered to produce documents relating to personal
services and salary vouchers of <++B employees on the plea that such
documents are classified without violating their e*ual protection of laws.
He.d
K<S. !t common law a governmental privilege against disclosure is recogni'ed
with respect to state secrets bearing on military# diplomatic and similar matters
and in addition# privilege to withhold the identity of persons who furnish
information of violation of laws. +n the case at bar# there is no claim that
military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the production of records
pertaining to the personnel of the <++B. +ndeed# <++BLs function is the gathering
and evaluation of intelligence reports and information regarding Eillegal
activities affecting the national economy# such as# but not limited to# economic
sabotage# smuggling# ta$ evasion# dollar salting.E Conse*uently# while in cases
which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to determine from the
circumstances of the case that there is reasonable danger that compulsion of the
evidence will e$pose military matters without compelling production# no similar
e$cuse can be made for a privilege resting on other considerations.
"he Ombudsman is investigating a complaint that several items in the <++B
were filled by fictitious persons and that the allotments for these items in 3=>>
were used for illegal purposes. "he plantilla and other personnel records are
relevant to his investigation as the designated Mprotectors of the peopleN of the
Constitution.
)or is there violation of petitionersL 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 sworn
statements with their identities fully disclosed#E while in proceedings before the
Office 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 provided
in the Constitution itself. +n the second place# it is apparent that in permitting the
filing of complaints Ein any form and in a manner#E the framers of the
Constitution tooB into account the well(Bnown reticence of the people which
Beep them from complaining against official wrongdoings. !s this Court had
occasion to point out# the Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other
investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government because those sub,ect
to its ,urisdiction are public officials who# through official pressure and
influence# can *uash# delay or dismiss investigations held against them. On the
other hand complainants are more often than not poor and simple folB who
cannot afford to hire lawyers.
-inally# it is contended that the issuance of the subpoena ducestecum would
violate petitionersL right against self(incrimination. +t is enough to state that the
documents re*uired to be produced in this case are public records and those to
whom the subpoena ducestecum is directed are government officials in whose
possession or custody the documents are. :oreover# if# as petitioners claim the
disbursement by the <++ of funds for personal service has already been cleared
by the CO!# there is no reason why they should ob,ect to the e$amination of the
documents by respondent Ombudsman.
7% Uy )% S#nd(3#nb#y#n, GR N*% 4:6=86, M#r-, ':, '::4
FACTS +n Ay vs Sandiganbayan H&... )os. 320=90(72. !ugust =# 3===I#
petitioner Ay# who was Deputy Comptroller of the Philippine navy and
designated as !ssistant Chief of )aval Staff for Comptrollership was charged
with estafa through falsification of official documents and violation of .! 423=.
"he petitioner filed a motion to *uash# arguing that the Sandiganbayan had no
,urisdiction over the offense charged and that the Ombudsman and the Special
Prosecutor had no authority to file the offense.
"he court ruled that
3. +t is the court(martial# not the Sandiganbayan# which has ,urisdiction to try
petitioner since he was a regular officer of the !rmed -orces of the
Philippines# and fell s*uarely under !rticle 1 of the !rticles of %ar
mentioned in Section 35b6 of P.D. 3>02# MProviding for the trial by courts(
martial of members of the +ntegrated )ational Police and further defining
the ,urisdiction of courts(martial over members of the !rmed -orces of the
PhilippinesN
1. !s to the violations of .epublic !ct )o. 423=# the petitioner does not fall
within the MranBN re*uirement stated in Section / of the Sandiganbayan Law#
thus# e$clusive ,urisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular courts # as
amended by ..!. )o. >1/=# which states that M+n cases where none of the
accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary &rade O17C or higher#
as prescribed in the said .epublic !ct )o. 970># or military and P)P officers
mentioned above# e$clusive original ,urisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper regional trial court# metropolitan trial court# municipal trial court# and
municipal circuit trial court# as the case may be# pursuant to their respective
,urisdictions as provided in Batas PambansaBlg. 31=# as amended.N
+n this connection# it is the prosecutor# not the Ombudsman# who has the
authority to file the corresponding informationJs against petitioner in the
regional trial court. "he Ombudsman e$ercises prosecutorial powers only in
cases 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 Special
Prosecutor filed# which was denied.
"he instant case is a :otion for -urther Clarification filed by Ombudsman
!niano !. Desierto of the CourtLs ruling in its decision dated !ugust =# 3===
and resolution dated -ebruary 11# 1222.
ISSUE %hether or not the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman e$tends only
to cases cogni'able by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no
authority to prosecute cases falling within the ,urisdiction of regular courts.
RULING )o. "he Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public
officers and employees# not only those within the ,urisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan# but those within the ,urisdiction of the regular courts as well.
"he power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is
plenary and un*ualified. +t pertains to any act or omission of any public officer
or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal# un,ust# improper
or inefficient. "he law does not maBe a distinction between cases cogni'able by
the Sandiganbayan and those cogni'able by regular courts. +t has been held that
the clause Eany illegal act or omission of any public officialE is broad enough to
embrace all Binds of malfeasance# misfeasance and non(feasance committed by
public officers and employees during their tenure of office.
"he e$ercise by the Ombudsman of his primary ,urisdiction over cases
cogni'able by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of his
duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed by public officers
and employees. "he prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and
employees is one of the most important functions of the Ombudsman. +n passing
.! 9772# the Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power
to maBe him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring
accountability in public office.
<ven a perusal of the law 5PD 39426 originally creating the Office of the
Ombudsman then 5to be Bnown as the "anodbayan6# and the amendatory laws
issued subse*uent thereto will show that# at its inception# the Office of the
Ombudsman was already vested with the power to investigate and prosecute
civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and even the regular courts.
5% R#r* )% S#nd(3#nb#y#n, GR 4:9574, "/.y 45, ':::
FACTS> "he complaint against petitioner for violation of the !nti(&raft and
Corrupt Practices !ct was referred by the Deputy Ombudsman to the )B+ for
investigation.
Petitioner Oscar &. .aro# a lawyer# was the Corporate Secretary of the Philippine
Charity SweepstaBes Office 5PCSO6. !s such# petitioner was the !cting :anager
of the Special Pro,ects Department that was in charge of the e$perimental Small
"own Lottery 5S"L6# which under PCSO .esolution )o. 33># dated !pril 3=>7#
was to be operated in certain areas of the country. On @uly 42# 3=>7# the PCSO#
through !tty. .eynaldo <. +lagan of the Special Pro,ects Department# authori'ed
<lmec "rading and :anagement Corporation 5<L:<C6 to operate the S"L in the
province of Camarines )orte. <L:<C in turn employed Luis 5MBingN6 -. !baPo#
a resident of Daet# Camarines )orte# as Provincial :anager of the e$perimental
S"L in said province.H3I !baPo allegedly invested P322#222.22 in the S"L
operation in that province.
+n a complaint that he filed with the "anodbayan in :anila on :ay 12# 3=>>#
!baPo alleged that petitioner# in his capacity as PCSO Corporate Secretary#
Mpersonally and directly intervened in the operation of said lottery to his financial
benefit and advantageN.
!baPo maintained further that petitioner got mad at him when he gave petitioner a
checB instead of cash# which petitioner later used to accuse !baPo of issuing a
bouncing checB notwithstanding that the checB was not encashed. !baPo added
that petitioner was not only dishonest but displayed such dishonesty.H1I "he
complaint filed by !baPoCs counsel was verified and subscribed before a notary
public#H4I and docBeted in the Office of the Ombudsman as OSP(>>(23194.
Overall Ombudsman @ose &. Colayco# on @uly 3# 3=>># endorsed the complaint to
the )ational Bureau of +nvestigation 5)B+6.H/I On :ay 33# 3=>=# )B+(L<D
Officer(in(Charge &erarda &. &alang submitted a report stating that the
investigation conducted by )B+ Senior !gent Salvador !. DuBa yielded its
findings.
"he )B+ recommended the prosecution of the petitioners. However# the
petitioners argue that the four(year delay in the completion of the preliminary
investigation violated right to speedy disposition of cases.
ISSUE> %hether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion on the
ground that the preliminary investigation allegedly violated the right of the
accused to due process of law.
HELD +t tooB the )B+ 1 years to complete its report. "he resolution
recommending the filing of the case against petitioner has to be reviewed. "he
length of time it tooB before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation may
only be attributed to the adherence of the Ombudsman and )B+ to the rudiments
of fair play.
"he instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is D+S:+SS<D for lacB of merit.
"he assailed .esolutions of the Sandiganbayan are hereby !--+.:<D. "he
Sandiganbayan is D+.<C"<D to proceed with deliberate dispatch in the
disposition of Criminal Case )o. 37>22.
6% B#/t(st# )% S#nd(3#nb#y#n, GR 478:9', M#y 4', ':::
FACTS> "his petition seeBs to set aside the 34 :arch 3==> .esolution of the
Sandiganbayan denying petitionerLs M*t(*n t* ?/#s,5is a request to a court to
render a previous decision of that court or a lower judicial body null or invalid.
It can arise out of mistaes 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 <mployees of Davao del Sur initiated this case. +t was filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman for :indanao charging petitioner -ranBlin P.
Bautista# incumbent mayor of the :unicipality of :alita# Davao del Sur# for
violation of Sec. 4# par. 5e6# of .! 423=# as amended# otherwise Bnown as the
!nti(&raft and Corrupt Practices !ct. "he letter(complaint alleged# among others#
that petitioner caused the hiring of one hundred and ninety(two 53=16 casual
employees in the municipal government for political considerations and that the
payment of their honoraria and salaries was charged to the peace and order fund
despite meager savings of the municipality.
!cting on the letter(complaint# &raft +nvestigation Officer ++ 5&+O ++6 Cora'on !.
!rancon issued on 39 @anuary 3==7 an Order directing respondent -ranBlin P.
Bautista# petitioner herein# to submit his counter(affidavit. +n his counter(affidavit
of 19 -ebruary 3==7 petitioner# answering the charges against him# claimed that
the complaint# which was unsigned# was fictitious and fabricated as shown by the
affidavits of the ContractorLs !ssociation of Davao del SurD 8ice :ayor of :alita#
Davao del SurD Department of Public %orBs and Highways# 1nd District# Davao
del SurD !ssistant Provincial "reasurer of Davao del SurD and two teachers# therein
attached# which disclaimed any Bnowledge of the institution of the complaint nor
cause of its filing. He further argued that the hiring of the one hundred ninety(two
53=16 casuals and the payment of their honoraria and wages did not ,ustify the
filing of any charge against him.
!fter due consideration# &+O ++ !rancon in his .esolution dated 17 :ay 3==7
found a prima facie case for violation of Sec. 4# par. 5e6# of .! 423=# as amended#
against petitioner and forwarded the resolution to the Ombudsman for approval.
Chief
On 4 October 3==7 the Ombudsman approved the resolution. "hereafter# an
+nformation for violation of Sec. 4# par. 5e6# of .! 423=# as amended# was filed
against petitioner before the Sandiganbayan# docBeted as Crim. Case )o. 1/179.
ISSUE> %hether or not the Ombudsman can determine probable cause in
bringing the case to courtG
HELD> %H<.<-O.<# the petition is D+S:+SS<D. "he .esolution of the
Sandiganbayan of 34 :arch 3==> denying petitioner -ranBlin P. BautistaLs :otion
to Quash in Crim. Case )o. 1/179 and its .esolution of = October 3==> denying
reconsideration are !--+.:<D. Conse*uently# public respondents
Sandiganbayan 5"hird Division6 and the Office of the Ombudsman are directed to
proceed with the hearing and trial of Crim. Case )o. 1/179 against petitioner
until terminated.
8% R*@#s )% V#s;/e<, GR NO% 445=55, "/ne 4=, '::4
FACTS Petitioner .o$as was the Chairman# while )acpil was a :ember# of the
Bids and !wards Committee of the Philippine Constabulary(+ntegrated )ational
Police 5PC(+)P6. "he PC(+)P invited bids for the supply of si$ty(five units of fire
trucBs. "he Bids and !wards Committee voted to award the contract to the "ahei
Co.# Ltd.# manufacturer of )iBBo(Hino. !ccordingly# the contract was e$ecuted
between PC(+)P and "ahei Co.
"he CO! subse*uently discovered that there was a discrepancy in the amounts
indicatedon the disbursement voucher and the purchase order. Conse*uently# the
D+L& Secretary filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the respondents.
!fter preliminary investigation# the Deputy Ombudsman for the :ilitary
recommended the indictment of all respondents# e$cept .amire'. On review# the
Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the complaints
against .o$as# )acpil# Codoy# Rairanand.amire'. -ormal charges were filed with
the Sandiganbayan against )a'areno# -lores# "anchanco# Custodio# Osia# <spePa
and Santos. Petitioners were not included in the criminal information. -lores and
"anchanco moved for a reinvestigation# which was granted. "hereafter# the Office
of the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges against
-lores and "anchanco. +n the same resolution# however# the Special Prosecutor
made a sudden turn about as regards .o$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<D6 K<S. +t appears that the charge against respondents
was previously dismissed. -or this reason# there being no motion for
reconsideration filed by the complainant# said respondents ceased to be parties.
Conse*uently# the mere filing of motions for reconsideration by those previously
indicted# without *uestioning the dismissal of the charge against the said
respondents# could not and should not be made the basis for impleading them as
accused in this case without violating their right to due process. -urthermore# it
appears that petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor
reinstated the complaint against them without their Bnowledge. Due process of
law re*uires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has
the right to be present and defend himself in person at every stage of the
proceedings.
A% #r#B#n )% O1b/ds1#n, GR 44===:, "/ne '4, '::5
FACTS Petitioner wrote then Senator <rnesto :aceda imputing certain criminal
acts to Mthe present number and membershipN or Mthe cli*ue of si$N in the Board
of Directors of the !l(!manah +slamic +nvestment BanB of the Philippines
5M+slamic BanBN6 on 3/ -ebruary 3==/. Petitioner claimed that Mthe cli*ue of si$N
granted a loan of P102#222 to Compressed !ir :achineries S <*uipment
Corporation 5MC!:<CN6 without a valid collateral. Petitioner also claimed that
the Mcli*ue of si$Napproved the real estate mortgage on C!:<CCs loan without
re*uiring the cancellation of a prior subsisting mortgage and without securing the
written consent of the first mortgagee in violation of law. Petitioner asserted that it
was a violation of .!423=. :aceda endorsed the letter to Ombudsman Conrado
:. 8as*ue' for appropriate investigation. .aul .. !rnau 5M!rnauN6# Head of the
<valuation and Preliminary +nvestigation Bureau 5M<P+BN6# re*uired respondents
re*uired BOD of the banB to comment on the assailed complaint. Petitioner
alleged that respondents concealed the names and terms of the directors before
them and it was a violation under "he Ombudsman !ct of 3=>= 5M.! 9772N6 but
the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint.
ISSUES %hether or not the Ombudsman officials conducted appropriate
invetigations according to their constitutional# statutory and administrative
mandates# re*uirements and their sworn duties as re*uested and endorsed by
Senator :aceda of the Senate Blue .ibbon Committee.
HELD Ander Section 17 of .! 9772# a decision of the Ombudsman in an
administrative disciplinary action is appealable to this Court by petition for
review under .ule /0. However# this does not include decisions of the
Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases. )either does it
include orders resolving incidents in preliminary investigations of criminal cases.
+n other words# the right to appeal under .ule /0 does not apply to orders and
decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. Such right is granted only from
orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. <ven in
administrative cases# appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman is first taBen to
the Court of !ppeals under the provisions of .ule /4
9% Pe*p.e )% S#nd(3#nb#y#n C 564 SCRA 547 D'::6E
FACTS> "he charges emanated from the alleged anomalous advertising contracts
entered into by !las# in his capacity as President and Chief Operating Officer of
the Philippine Postal Savings BanB 5PPSB6# with BagongBuhay Publishing
Company which purportedly caused damage and pre,udice to the government.
On October 42# 1221# !las filed a motion to *uash the informations for lacB of
,urisdiction# which motion was vehemently opposed by the prosecution. !fter
considering the arguments of both parties# the respondent court ruled that PPSB
was a private corporation and that its officers# particularly herein respondent !las#
did not fall under Sandiganbayan ,urisdiction.
Dissatisfied# the People# through the Office of the Special Prosecutor 5OSP6# filed
this petitionH4I arguing# in essence# that the PPSB was a government(owned or
controlled corporation as the term was defined under Section 15346 of the
!dministrative Code of 3=>7.H/I LiBewise# in further defining the ,urisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan# .! >1/= did not maBe a distinction as to the manner of
creation of the government(owned or controlled corporations for their officers to
fall under its ,urisdiction. Hence# being President and Chief Operating Officer of
the PPSB at the time of commission of the crimes charged# respondent !las came
under the ,urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Quoting at length from the assailed resolution dated -ebruary 30# 1223#
respondent !las# on the other hand# practically reiterated the pronouncements
made by the respondent court in support of his conclusion that the PPSB was not
created by special law# hence# its officers did not fall within the ,urisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE> %hether or notthe Sandiganbayan have ,urisdiction over presidents#
directors or trustees# or managers of government(owned or controlled
corporations organi'ed and incorporated under the Corporation Code for purposes
of the provisions of .! 423=# otherwise Bnown as the !nti(&raft and Corrupt
Practices !ctG
HELD> &!HEREFORE, (n )(eF *0 t,e 0*re3*(n3, t,e pet(t(*n (s ,ereby
GRANTED #nd t,e #ss#(.ed res*./t(*n d#ted Febr/#ry 46, '::4 *0 t,e
resp*ndent -*/rt (s ,ereby REVERSED #nd SET ASIDE%+ PPSB fits the bill
as a government(owned or controlled corporation# and organi'ed and incorporated
under the Corporation Code as a subsidiary of the Philippine Postal Corporation
5PH+LPOS"6. :ore than ==T of the authori'ed capital stocB of PPSB belongs to
the government while the rest is nominally held by its incorporators who areJwere
themselves officers of PH+LPOS". "he creation of PPSB was e$pressly
sanctioned by Section 41 of .! 740/# otherwise Bnown as the Postal Service !ct
of 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 and
the marginali'ed sector in the countryside $$$N and to facilitate postal service by
Mreceiving collections and maBing payments# including postal money orders.NH7I
+t is not disputed that the Sandiganbayan has ,urisdiction over presidents# directors
or trustees# or managers of government(owned or controlled corporations with
original charters whenever charges of graft and corruption are involved. However#
a *uestion arises whether the Sandiganbayan has ,urisdiction over the same
officers 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
S<C. 1. 536 "he Civil Service embraces all branches# subdivisions#
instrumentalities# and agencies of the government# including government(owned
or controlled corporations with original charters.
+t should be pointed out however# that the ,urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is
separate and distinct from the Civil Service Commission. "he same is governed
by !rticle F+# Section / of the 3=>7 Constitution which provides that Mthe present
anti(graft court Bnown as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and
e$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 defined
under !rticle F+++# Section 0 of the 3=74 Constitution which mandated its
creation# thus
Sec. 0. "he BatasangPambansa shall create a special court# to be Bnown as
Sandiganbayan# which shall have ,urisdiction over criminal and civil cases
involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offense committed by public
officers and employees# including those in government(owned or controlled
corporations# in relation to their office as may be determined by law. 5+talics ours6
=% L#@(n# )% O1b/ds1#n C 5A4 SCRA 65' D'::6E
FACTS> Petitioner :anuel D. La$ina# Sr. was Barangay Chairman of Brgy.
Batasan Hills# Que'on City. On 30 December 3==># <vangeline Arsal 5MArsalN6#
Barangay ClerB of Batasan Hills# Que'on City# filed with the )ational Bureau of
+nvestigation 5)B+6 a complaint for attempted rape against petitioner. Petitioner
was subse*uently charged with se$ual harassment before the .egional "rial
Court of Que'on City.
On 34 :arch 1222# Arsal brought before the Department of +nterior and
Local &overnment 5D+L&6 a complaint(affidavit charging petitioner with grave
misconduct for the alleged attempted rape. However# the D+L& referred the
complaint to the Que'on City Council 5MCity CouncilN6for appropriate action.
Said complaint was docBeted as !dm. Case )o. 22(34 before the City Council.
"hereafter# on 42 :arch 1222# Arsal filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
a similar complaint(affidavit charging petitioner with grave misconduct# docBeted
as O:B !D: Case )o. 2(22(2402.H>I Petitioner filed his counter(affidavit and
attached thereto the affidavits of two witnesses. On 30 !ugust 1222# the
!dministrative !d,udication Bureau 5!!B6 of the Office of the Ombudsman
e$onerated petitioner from the charge# dismissing the complaint for lacB of
substantial evidence.H=I However# on 1 @uly 1223# upon review# and with the
approval of the Ombudsman# petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct and
meted the penalty of dismissal# with forfeiture of material benefits# per its
:emorandum Order.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the ad,udication# alleging lacB of ,urisdiction
on the part of the Ombudsman# but the motion was denied.
:eanwhile# Arsal asBed the City Council to waive its ,urisdiction in favor of
the Ombudsman."he City Council merely noted ArsalCs 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 and
to submit a compliance report. :ayor Belmonte issued an implementing order#
notifying petitioner of his dismissal from service and en,oining him to cease and
desist from performing his duties as barangay captain.
Petitioner sought the review of the OmbudsmanCs :emorandum Order
before the C!# arguing that 5i6 the Office of the Ombudsman did not have
,urisdiction over the administrative complaintD 5ii6 ArsalCs filing of the same
administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman and the City Council
through the D+L& warranted the dismissal of both casesD and 5iii6 petitioner was
denied due process in the proceedings before the Ombudsman.
ISSUE> %hether or not the Ombudsman has ,urisdiction over the caseG
HELD> "he C! found the OmbudsmanCs assumption of ,urisdiction ,ustified
since it became aware of the earlier case before the City Council only when
petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration.H3>I +n addition# the C! stated that
the Ombudsman was ,ustified in not dismissing the administrative cases as a
penalty for forum(shopping because petitioner and Arsal are in pari delicto.H3=I
)either was petitioner deprived of administrative due process since he was
allowed to present evidence and said evidence were passed upon by the
Ombudsman.
"he mandate of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring public
officials# derived from both the ConstitutionH4>I and the lawH4=I gives it
,urisdiction over the complaint against petitioner. "he Constitution has named the
Ombudsman 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.H/2I "o fulfill this mandate# ..!. )o. 9772# or the
Ombudsman !ct of 3=>=# was enacted# giving the Ombudsman or his Deputies
,urisdiction over complaints on all Binds of malfeasance# misfeasance and non(
feasanceH/3I against officers or employees of the government# or any subdivision#
agency or instrumentality therefor# including government(owned or controlled
corporations# and the disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive
officials# e$cept those who may be removed only by impeachment or over
members of Congress and the @udiciary.H/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.
H/4I %ithout a doubt# the Office of the Ombudsman has concurrent ,urisdiction
with the Que'on City Council over administrative cases against elective officials
such as petitioner.
"he Ombudsman was not aware of the pending case before the Que'on City
Council when the administrative complaint was filed before it. "here was no
mention of such complaint either in the complaint(affidavit or in the counter(
affidavit of petitioner. "hus# the Ombudsman# in compliance with its duty to act
on all complaints against officers and employees of the government# tooB
cogni'ance of the case# made its investigation# and rendered its decision
accordingly.
!s e$plained *uite fre*uently# a party may be barred from raising *uestions of
,urisdiction where estoppel by laches has set in. <stoppel by laches is failure or
neglect for an unreasonable and une$plained length of time to do what# by
e$ercising due diligence# ought to have been done earlier# warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or has
ac*uiesced to the correctness and fairness of its resolution. "his doctrine is based
on grounds of public policy which for peace of society re*uires the
discouragement of stale claims and# unliBe the statute of limitations# is not a mere
*uestion of time but is principally an issue of ine*uity or unfairness of permitting
a right or claim to be enforced or espoused.H//I
Petitioner is also estopped from *uestioning the ,urisdiction of the Ombudsman.
! perusal of the records shows that he participated in the proceedings by filing
his counter(affidavit with supporting evidence. )either did he inform the
Ombudsman of the e$istence of the other administrative complaint of which he is
presumably aware at the time the proceedings in the Ombudsman were on(going.
+t was only when the Ombudsman rendered an adverse decision that he disclosed
the proceedings before the Que'on City Council and raised the issue of
,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(tBRe3(*n VII, Gr 49:'78, 4A
"#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 the
government of proper motor vehicle registration fees. "hey now seeB in the
present consolidated petitions a ,udgment from this Court annulling the @anuary
3># 1229 Decision3 and September 13# 1227 .esolution1 of the Court of !ppeals
5C!6 which affirmed with modification the Decision4 of the Office of the
Ombudsman(8isayas dismissing them from government service.
On September /# 1223# the Philippine Star )ews# a local newspaper in
Cebu City# reported that employees of the L"O in @agna# Bohol# are shortchanging
the 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 <mmanuel L. Coloma of the Provincial
.evenue !udit &roup to conduct a fact(finding investigation. ! widespread
tampering of official receipts of :otor 8ehicle .egistration during the years
3==># 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 the
amounts collected for the registration charges. However# when the receipts were
reported in the .eport of Collections# the data therein were already tampered
reflecting 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 as
correct# he allowed the scheme to be perpetrated. !s to Cabalit# the CO! pointed
out that as cashier# CabalitCs signature on the receipts signified that she received
the registration fees. "he correct amounts should have therefore appeared in the
.eport of Collections# but as already stated# lesser amounts appeared on the
.eport 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 be
given 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+) (+123 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.:
1 |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; # > ! 9 9 . < @ : 9 @ # T 1 : : 6 # C
&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T6#:#T= !G 8%6:#C
!GG#C4R&
Case/ 6uenaseda v. Glavier
BB6 &CR 6Q5
Gacts/ #n ',,B, the 9C<C 9urses ssociation )9C<C* 0led a case of $raft and
corruption a$ainst Dr. 6ri$ida 6uenaseda and several other $overnment o"cials of
the Department of Cealth )D!C*. The !mbudsman )then Conrado EasqueF*, ordered
the suspension of 6uenaseda et al. The suspension was carried on by then D!C
&ecretary >uan Glavier, bein$ the o"cer in char$e over 6uenaseda et al. 6uenaseda
et al then 0led with the &upreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, questionin$ the suspension order. 9C<C submitted its Comment on the
8etition where they attached a <otion for Disbarment a$ainst the lawyers of
6uenaseda et al.
lle$edly, the lawyers of 6uenaseda et al advised them not to obey the suspension
order, which is a lawful order from a duly constituted authority. 9C<C maintains that
such advice from the lawyersconstitute a violation a$ainst the Code of 8rofessional
Responsibility.
The &olicitor @eneral, commentin$ on the case, a$reed with 6uenasedaHs lawyers as
he maintained that all the !mbudsman can do is to recommend suspensions not
impose them. The &ol1@en based his ar$ument on &ection '( )(* of the ',-.
Constitution which provides that the !"ce of the !mbudsman shall have inter alia
the power, function, and duty to/
Direct the o"cer concerned to ta7e appropriate action a$ainst a public o"cial or
employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, 0ne, censure
or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
#ssues/ ;hether or not the !mbudsman has the power to suspend $overnment
o"cials. ;hether or not a <otion for Disbarment may be 0led in a special civil action.
Celd/ =es, the !mbudsman may impose suspension orders. The &upreme Court
clari0es that what the !mbudsman issued is an order of preventive suspension
pendin$ the resolution of the case or investi$ation thereof. #t is not imposin$
suspension as a penalty )not punitive suspension*. ;hat the Constitution
contemplates that the !mbudsman may recommend are punitive suspensions.
nent the issue of the <otion for Disbarment 0led with the !mbudsman, the same is
not proper. #t cannot be 0led in this special civil action which is con0ned to questions
of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion for the purpose of relievin$ persons from the
arbitrary acts of jud$es and quasi1judicial o"cers. There is a set of procedure for the
discipline of members of the bar separate and apart from the present special civil
action. Cowever, the lawyers of 6uenaseda were reminded not be carried away in
espousin$ their clientHs cause. The lan$ua$e of a lawyer, both oral and written, must
be respectful and restrained in 7eepin$ with the di$nity of the le$al profession and
with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession. $ |C ! 9 & T # T % T # !
9 : : ; # > ! 9 9 . < @ : 9 @ # T 1 : : 6 # C
&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T6#:#T= !G 8%6:#C
!GG#C4R&
Case/ Ca$ad v. @oFo1 Dadole
B5' &CR BQ(
Gacts/ !n >uly BB, ',,B, criminal and administrative complaints were 0led a$ainst
<ayor !uano, Eice <ayor Canete and Councilor <ayol, all public o"cials of <andaue
City by Councilors Dionson, 6aricede. There respondents were char$ed with havin$
violated R.. 9o. (J', )nti1@raft and Corrupt 8ractices ct*, as amended,rticles
'.J )falsi0cation of le$islative documents* and '.' )falsi0cation by public o"cers* of
the Revised 8enal Code2 and R.. 9o. 6.'( )Code of Conduct and 4thical &tandards of
8ublic !"cers*. The respondent o"cials were alle$edly causin$ alteration of
!rdinance 9o. J'-V,B by increasin$ the allotted appropriation from 8(.5< to 8.<
without authority from &an$$unian$ 8anlun$sod of <andaue.
The respondent o"cials prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the $round that
the !mbudsman supposedly was bereft of jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the
administrative case 0led a$ainst them since, under &ection 6( of the :ocal
@overnment Code of ',,', the power to investi$ate and impose administrative
sanctions a$ainst said local o"cials, as well as to eOect their preventive suspension,
had now been vested with the !"ce of the 8resident. !n &eptember ',,B, a TR!
a$ainst Ca$ad was 0led and $ranted to the petitioners by RTC <andaue to restrain
him from enforcin$ suspension.
#ssues/ ;hether or not the !mbudsman under R 6..J )!mbudsman ct of '-,-*
has been divested of his authority to conduct administrative investi$ations over local
elective o"cial by virtue of subsequent enactment of R .'6J.
Celd/ 9o. The authority of the !mbudsman over local o"cials pursuant to R 6..J is
not removed by :@ Code of ',,'. There is nothin$ in the :ocal @overnment Code to
indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions
of the !mbudsman ct. The two statutes on the speci0c matter in question are not so
inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to only uphold one and stri7e
down the other . ;ell settled is the rule that repeals of laws by implication are not
favored, '6 and that courts must $enerally assume their con$ruent application. The
two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear 0ndin$ thereof must surface,
before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the
maxim, interpretare et concordare le$ibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every
statute must be so interpreted and brou$ht into accord with other laws as to form a
uniform system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the le$islature should be
presumed to have 7nown the existin$ laws on the subject and not to have enacted
conUictin$ statutes. Cence, all doubts must be resolved a$ainst any implied repeal,
and all eOorts should be exerted in order to harmoniFe and $ive eOect to all laws on
the subject. The authority to conduct administrative investi$ation and to impose
preventive suspension over elective provincial or city o"cials was at that time
entrusted to the <inister of :ocal @overnment until it became concurrent with the
!mbudsman upon the enactment of R.. 9o. 6..J, speci0cally under &ections B' and
BQ thereof, to the extent of the common $rant. The :ocal @overnment Code of ',,'
)R.. 9o. .'6J*, in 0ne, did not aOect a chan$e from what already prevailed, the
modi0cation bein$ only in the substitution of the &ecretary )the <inister* of :ocal
@overnment by the !"ce of the 8resident. / |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; # > ! 9 9 . <
@ : 9 @ # T 1 : : 6 # C
&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T6#:#T= !G 8%6:#C
!GG#C4R&
Case/ 4storija v. Randa
Q,B &CR 65B
Gacts/ 4d$ardo E. 4starija was the Carbor <aster of the 8hilippine 8orts
uthority )88*, 8ort of Davao, &asa, Davao City. s such, he issued the
necessary berthin$ permit for all ships that doc7ed in the Davao 8ort. #n an
administrative complaint for $ross misconduct a$ainst him, it was alle$ed
that he had been demandin$ money for the approval and issuance of
berthin$ permits and for monthly contributions from the Davao 8ilots
ssociation, #nc. )D8#*. The complaint also alle$ed that in ',,-, the 9ational
6ureau of #nvesti$ation )96#* cau$ht 4starija in possession of the mar7ed
money used to entrap the latter. The !mbudsman ordered 4starijaHs
preventive suspension and 0led a criminal case a$ainst him for violation of
Republic ct 9o. (J',, The nti1@raft and Corrupt 8ractices ct.
&ubsequently, the !mbudsman in the administrative case, found 4starija
$uilty of dishonesty and $rave misconduct and dismissed him from
$overnment service with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement
bene0ts. #n his motion for reconsideration, 4starija claimed that his dismissal
was unconstitutional since the !mbudsmanHs administrative authority is
merely recommendatory and that Rep. ct 9o. 6..J was also
unconstitutional because it $ives the !"ce of the !mbudsman additional
powers that are not provided for in the Constitution. The !mbudsman denied
the motion for reconsideration, which was a"rmed by the Court of ppeals.
The appellate court held that the attac7 on the constitutionality of Rep. ct
9o. 6..J was belated, havin$ been made only in the motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the !mbudsman, and that 4starija failed to
overcome the presumption of constitutionality in favor of Rep. ct 9o. 6..J.
#n this petition for review on certiorari, 4starija contends that he cannot be
liable for $rave misconduct because he did not commit extortion as he was
merely prodded by drian Ca$ata, an employee of the D8#, to receive the
money and that it ma7es no sense why he would extort money in
consideration of the issuance of berthin$ permits since the si$nin$ of
berthin$ permits is only ministerial on his part. Ce also maintains that Rep.
ct 9o. 6..J is unconstitutional because the !mbudsman has only the
powers enumerated under &ection '(, rticle +# of the Constitution, which
powers do not include the power to directly remove, suspend, demote, 0ne,
or censure a $overnment o"cial. ccordin$ to him, the !mbudsmanHs power
is merely to recommend the action to the o"cer concerned. The &olicitor
@eneral maintains otherwise, ar$uin$ that the framers of the ',-.
Constitution did not intend to spell out, restrictively, each act which the
!mbudsman may or may not do, since the purpose of the Constitution is to
provide simply a framewor7 within which to build the institution.
#ssues/ '.* ;hether or not there is substantial evidence to hold 4starija liable for
dishonesty and
$rave misconduct2
B.* ;hether or not the power of the !mbudsman to directly remove, suspend,
demote, 0ne, or censure errin$ o"cials is constitutional & |C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ;
# > ! 9 9 . < @ : 9 @ # T 1 : : 6 # C
Celd/ The petition is D49#4D.
4starija is liable for dishonesty and $rave misconduct
4starija did not deny that he went to the D8# o"ce to collect, and that he actually
received, the money which he demanded from the D8# as monthly contribution.
&ince there was no pendin$ transaction between the 88 and the D8#, he had no
reason 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"cial
receipt for the transaction, but he did not do so. The powers of the !mbudsman are
not merely recommendatory #n passin$ Rep. ct 9o. 6..J, the Con$ress deliberately
endowed the !mbudsman with the power to prosecute oOenses committed by public
o"cers and employees to ma7e him a more active and eOective a$ent of the people
in ensurin$ accountability in public o"ce. <oreover, the le$islature has vested the
!mbudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. :astly,
the Constitution $ave Con$ress the discretion to $ive the !mbudsman other powers
and functions. The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the !mbudsman in
&ec. '(, rt. +# of the ',-. Constitution, but allows the le$islature to enact a law that
would spell out the powers of the !mbudsman. Throu$h the enactment of Rep. ct
9o. 6..J, speci0cally &ec. '5, par. (, the Con$ress $ave the !mbudsman such
powers to sanction errin$ o"cials and employees, except members of Con$ress and
the >udiciary. The powers of the !mbudsman are not merely recommendatory. Cis
o"ce was $iven teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but
also eOective. Thus, under Rep. ct 9o. 6..J and the ',-. Constitution, the
!mbudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from $overnment
service an errin$ public o"cial other than a member of Con$ress and the >udiciary. '
|C ! 9 & T # T % T # ! 9 : : ; # > ! 9 9 . < @ : 9 @ # T 1 : : 6 # C
&4CT#!9 '(/ RT#C:4 +#2 CC!%9T6#:#T= !G 8%6:#C
!GG#C4R&
Case/ !mbudsman v. :ucero
5J- &CR 5,(
Gacts/ 8etitioner Garida T. :ucero was appointed as Cler7 ## of :T!, was reassi$ned by
virtue of a <emorandum, to assist the Re$ional Cashier in collectin$ and receivin$
miscellaneous feesV revenues.
t the request of the !#C1 Re$ional Director 8orferio #. <endoFa of the :T!, C!
conducted an audit in the Cash &ection of the !perations Division of :T!, revealed
8etitioner to have issued 6, altered miscellaneous receipts.
!mbudsman found petitioner $uilty of dishonesty. !n appeal, the appellate court
upheld the 0ndin$ of the !mbudsman but declared that !mbudsman had no
authority to order petitioners dismissal from the service.
#ssues/ ;hether or not the !mbudsman is empowered to order the removal of public
o"cials or employees in administrative cases.
Celd/ =es. The !mbudsman act authoriFes the ombudsman to impose penalties in
administrative cases. The !"ce of the !mbudsman is empowered not merely to
recommend, but to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion,
0ne,censure or prosecution of a public o"cial or employee found to be at fault.