MWSS

vs. Vasquez
January 25, 1995
Vitug, J.

Topic and Provisions involved: Ombudsmans Jurisdiction over administrative
agencies (MWSS) in the lawful exercise of the agencys judgment or discretion

Doctrine While the board authority of the Ombudsman to investigate any act or
omission which appears illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient may be yielded, it is
difficult to equally concede, however, that the constitution and the Ombudsman Act
have intended to likewise confer upon it veto or revisory power over an exercise of
judgment or discretion by any agency or officer upon whom that judgment or
discretion is lawfully vested.

Facts

MWSS (Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System) launched the Angat Water Supply Optimization Project (AWSOP).
In order to finance the Distribution System Phase of the Project, MWSS
publicized the bidding for two projects called APM-01 and APM-02 (involving
the supply of labor, materials and equipment, and installment of new water
mains respectively).
Out of all those who gave their offers, only 11 contractors pre-qualified for
the bidding on Mar. 31 1992.
Eventually, For project APM-01: the three lowest bidders were:
o DYWIDAG/TITAN/WILPER/PLDPPMA/GREEN JADE (Joint
Venture/lowest bid)
o FF Cruz & Co. (Second lowest) proposed to use fiber glass pipes
o JV Angeles Const. Corp/JA devt corp.
For project APM-02: the three lowest bidders were:
o Eng. Equipment Inc (lowest bid) proposed to use fiber glass pipes
o FF Cruz & co. Inc (second) proposed to use fiber glass pipes
o JV Angeles Const. Corp/JA devt corp.
After a meeting held by MWSS, they decided that for APM-01, even though FF
Cruz was only the second lowest bidder, it complied with all the
requirements and granted it the bid. Joint Venture, on the other hand, failed
certain requirements.
PLDPPMA (Phil. large diameter pressure pipes manufacturers association)
filed a letter complaint with the Ombudsman protesting the public bidding
claiming that MWSS was clearly and arbitrarily favoring suppliers of fiber

glass pipes.
The ombudsman directed MWSS to hold in abeyance their awarding of the
subject contract.
After a investigation by the fact finding and intelligence bureau of the
ombudsman, the ombudsman issued the challenged order which stated that:
o MWSS must set aside its awarding of the bid to FF Cruz Inc and
award the subject contract to the lowest bidder pursuant to PD 1594
(guidelines for government infrastructure contracts).
MWSS appealed.

Issues: WON the ombudsman has jurisdiction to take cognizance of PLDPPMAs
complaint and issue its challenged orders reversing MWSS recommendations? NO!
Held MWSS won. Ombudsmans orders are annulled.
Ratio
Ombudsmans order to MWSS to set aside its recommendation of the
Contract No. APM-01 to the lowest COMPLYING bidder is invalid because it is
an undue interference in the adjudicative responsibility of the MWSS board of
trustees rather than a mere directive requiring the proper observance of and
compliance with the law.
The Ombudsman has broad and plenary powers granted to it by the
Constitution and RA 6770 such as its investigatory power found in:
o Art. XI Sec. 13 of the Constitution: Investigate on its own, or on
complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to e
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient
o RA 6770 Sec. 26: The office of the ombudsman shall inquire into
acts or omissions of a public officer, employee, office or agency
which from the reports or complaints it has received, the
ombudsman or his deputies consider to be: a) contrary to law or
regulation b) unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, irregular d) based on
improper motives or corrupt considerations.
o Delose v. Domingo: The Ombudsman act makes perfectly clear that
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been
committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in sec. 13 during
his tenure of office
However, the ombudsmans authority and jurisdiction are not unlimited. RA
6770 sec. 20 provides an exception:
o The office of the ombudsman may not conduct the necessary
investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if
it believes that: 1) the complainant has an adequate remedy in
another judicial or quasi-judicial body 2) the complaint pertains to a
matter outside the jurisdiction of the office of the ombudsman

In order to make the assailed orders, the ombudsman make factual findings
and decisions on technical matters that must be left to the proper
administrative agencies.
o The office of the ombudsman resolved three issues involving 1) WON
the technical specifications were designed to favor Fiberglass Pipers
Bidders 2) WON the MWSS has the technical knowledge and
expertise with fiber glass pipes 3) WON the contractors of fiberglass
pipes have the experience and qualifications to undertake the two
projects
MWSS is a government owned and controlled corporation created by law that
is in charge of the construction, maintenance and operation of waterwork
system to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of
potable water. It is the agency that should be in the best position to evaluate
the feasibility of the projections of the bidders and to decide which bid is
compatible with its development plans.
In Razon v. PPA: Neither this court nor congress, and now perhaps the
ombudsman, could be expected to have the time and technical expertise to
look into matters of this nature. MWSS, by the very nature of its functions,
however, must obviously enjoy an advantage over other agencies on the
subject at hand.
Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: Courts will not interfere in
matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies
entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the especial
technical knowledge and training of such agencies.

Lastimosa v. Vasquez
April 6, 1995
Mendoza

Topic: The Ombudsman
Provision: 31 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6770):
Designation of Investigators and Prosecutors. The Ombudsman
may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate of deputize
any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to
act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation
and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to
assist him as herein provided shall be under his supervision and
control. (Emphasis added)
Doctrine: When a prosecutor is deputized by the ombudsman, he becomes under the
supervision and control of the latter.

Facts:
- On February 18, 1993 Jessica Villacarlos Dayon, public health nurse of Santa
Fe, Cebu, filed a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative
complaint for immoral acts, abuse of authority and grave misconduct against
the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio Ilustrisimo. Intially, the deputy
ombudsman found no prima facie evidence. After review, Omb. Vasquez
reversed and directed that the mayor be charged with a criminal case in the
RTC.
- The case was referred to provincial prosecutor Lastimosa. She conducted her
own preliminary investigation and found that only acts of lasciviousness had
been committed. She filed a case for acts of lasciviousness with the MCTC.
- As no case for attempted rape had been filed by the Prosecutor's Office,
Deputy Ombudsman Mojica ordered on July 27, 1994 Provincial Prosecutor
Kintanar and petitioner Lastimosa to show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt for "refusing and failing to obey the lawful directives"
of the Office of the Ombudsman.
- Petitioner contends, the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the
case against the mayor because the crime involved (rape) was not committed
in relation to a public office. For this reason it is argued that the Office of the
Ombudsman has no authority to place her and Provincial Prosecutor
Kintanar under preventive suspension for refusing to follow his orders and to
cite them for indirect contempt for such refusal.


Issues:
1. WON the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to call on the
Provincial Prosecutor to assist it in the prosecution of the case for
attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo. Yes!
2. WON the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to suspend the
prosecutor. Yes!

Ratio:
Issue 1:
- The office of the Ombudsman has the power to "investigate and prosecute on
its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to
be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." This power has been held to
include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public
official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related
to, or connected with, or arise from, the performance of his official duty.
- It does not matter that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor had already
conducted the preliminary investigation and all that remained to be done was
for the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to file the corresponding case in
court. Even if the preliminary investigation had been given over to the
Provincial Prosecutor to conduct, his determination of the nature of the
offense to be charged would still be subject to the approval of the Office of the
Ombudsman. This is because under 31 of the Ombudsman's Act, when a
prosecutor is deputized, he comes under the "supervision and control" of the
Ombudsman which means that he is subject to the power of the Ombudsman
to direct, review, approve, reverse or modify his (prosecutor's) decision.
Petitioner cannot legally act on her own and refuse to prepare and file the
information as directed by the Ombudsman.
Issue 2:
- 15(g) of the Ombudsman Act gives the Office of the Ombudsman the power
to "punish for contempt, in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the
same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein." There is no
merit in the argument that petitioner and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar
cannot be held liable for contempt because their refusal arose out of an
administrative, rather than judicial, proceeding before the Office of the
Ombudsman.
- Whether petitioner's refusal to follow the Ombudsman's orders constitutes a
defiance, disobedience or resistance of a lawful process, order or command of
the Ombudsman thus making her liable for indirect contempt under Rule 71,
3 of the Rules of Court is for respondents to determine after appropriate
hearing.

Concurring Opinion, Regalado:

The longer period of six (6) months for preventive suspension under
Republic Act No. 6770 was evidently induced by a desire to more
meaningfully emphasize and implement the authority of the Office of the
Ombudsman over public officials and employees in order to serve as a
deterrent against illegal, unjust, improper and inefficient conduct on their
part. As the agency mandated by the Constitution to undertake such task, it
was invested with the corresponding authority to enable it to perform its
mission. Significantly, it is the only body authorized to investigate even
officials removable by impeachment.
The Court in Buenaseda:
The purpose of RA No. 6770 is to give the Ombudsman such powers
as he may need to perform efficiently the task committed to him by
the Constitution. Such being the case, said statute, particularly its
provisions dealing with procedure, should be given such
interpretation that will effectuate the purposes and objective of the
Constitution. Any interpretation that will hamper the work of the
Ombudsman should be avoided.
A statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution
should be liberally construed for the advancement of the purposes
and objectives for Department of which it was created.

Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Office of the Ombudsman

April 11, 2002
De Leon, Jr., J.

Topic: Coverage of investigatory power of Ombudsman
Provisions: Art. XI, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution; RA 6770
Doctrine: Ombudsman Act (RA 6770) makes it perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of
the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance
that have been committed by any officer or employee xxx during his tenure of office.

Facts:
A graft investigation officer from the Ombudsman received information from an
informer regarding certain anomalous tax refunds granted to Distillera Limtuaco
and Lan Tondena Distilleries. The officer recommended to then Ombudsman
Vasquez that this be docketed as a case and assigned to him for investigation.
Nov. 29, 1993: Ombudsman issued a subpoena duces tecum (subpoena for
production of evidence) addressed to an attorney from the Legal Dept. of the BIR,
ordering him to bring the complete BIR original case dockets of the refunds granted
to the distilleries.
The BIR first asked that they be excused from complying with the subpoena
because the investigation of the distilleries was rendered moot by the
Sandiganbayans ruling in People v. Larin that the taxes were erroneously paid and
thus the distilleries were entitled to a refund. The BIR also contended that the
Ombudsman issued the subpoena as a fishing expedition which was in violation of
Sec. 269 of the National Internal Revenue Code on unlawful divulgence of trade
secrets.
The Ombudsman did not comment on the issues raised by BIR and issued another
subpoena addressed to the BIR Commissioner. The BIR filed a motion to vacate the
subpoena. The Ombudsman denied this motion, stating that the cases assigned to
the graft investigation officer were already referred to the Fact-Finding and
Investigation Bureau of the Ombudsman for consolidation, and that the documents
submitted by the said investigator were incomplete and uncertified. Moreover, the
Ombudsman argued that the subpoena issued was not a fishing expedition
because the documents required to be produced were clearly specified.
The BIR filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Ombudsman denied. The BIR
Asst. Commissioner was asked to explain why he should not be cited for contempt
for refusing to comply with the subpoena. Hence, the BIR filed this instant Petition
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order.
BIR argues: The Ombudsman could validly exercise its power to
investigate only over an appropriate pending case subject to the limitations
provided by law. The fact-finding investigation by the Ombudsman is not a proper
case because it is only intended to lead to the filing of recovery actions on the tax

refunds granted to Limtuaco and La Tondea. Moreover, the BIR has exclusive
authority to grant tax credits so if the Ombudsman wanted to contest the BIRs
findings, then it should have appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.

Issues:
1) WON the Ombudsman may exercise its investigatory power only over an
appropriate pending case
2) WON the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to disturb the findings of the BIR
regarding the granting of tax refunds
Held:
1) NO.
2) YES.
BUT, BIRs petition is granted because the Office of the Ombudsman failed to follow
procedural requirements. Ombudsman ordered to desist from further investigation.

Ratio:
1) Art. XI, Sec. 12 of the Constitution provides that the Ombudsman and his Deputies,
as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and shall, in appropriate case, notify the complainants of the action
taken and the result thereof.
There is no requirement of a pending action before the Ombudsman could wield its
investigative power. The Ombudsman can opt to investigate motu propio or upon a
complaint filed in any form or manner, whether verbal or written, unsigned or
unverified. Therefore, as in this case, an anonymous letter from an informer shall
suffice because the Constitution does not require a particular form.
Those subject of the Ombudsmans jurisdiction are public officials who may use
their positions or influence to quash or delay investigations, while the complainants
are often the poor. The Constitution provides that no form is required, in order to
encourage the public to file these complaints.
In an appropriate case was clarified in Almonte v. Vasquez as any case
concerning an official act or omission which is alleged to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.

2) The power to investigate and to prosecute which was granted by law to the
Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. The Ombudsman Act makes it perfectly
clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer
or employee xxx during his tenure of office.
The mere finality of the BIRs ruling on the subject of tax refund cases is not a legal
impediment to the exercise of respondents investigative authority under the
Constitution and its Charter (RA 6770). While it is true that the determination of

WON to grant a tax refund falls within the exclusive expertise of the BIR, when
there is even just a suspicion impropriety in the grant of the same, the Ombudsman
could rightfully decided whether such was done in accordance with law and identify
those responsible for any anomalies. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot be accused
of unlawfully interfering with the BIRs discretion.
Moreover, the Ombudsman was not investigating as an appellate body having
power of review, but rather as an investigative agency which is the protector of the
people with the power to look into any case concerning an official act or omission
which is alleged to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
The clause any [illegal] act or omission of any public official is broad enough to
embrace any crime committed by a public official. The law does not qualify the
nature of the illegal act or omission of the public official or employee that the
Ombudsman may investigate. It does not require that the act or omission be related
to or be connected with or arise from the performance of official duty.
Procedural matters: With regard to the BIRs contention of unlawful divulgence of
trade secrets, the SC held that generally a governmental privilege against disclosure
is recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on military, diplomatic and
similar matters. The grants in this case did not involve any of the said matters.
However, the SC held that the Ombudsman circumvented the procedure required
by Sec. 26 of RA 6770 which states that if the Ombudsman finds reasonable ground
to investigate further, it shall first furnish the respondent public officer or employee
with a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written answer
within seventy-two hours from receipt hereof. If the answer is found satisfactory, it
shall dismiss the case.
The BIR officials concerned were never furnished with a summary of the complaint
nor given time to submit counter-affidavits and controverting evidence. Instead,
they were immediately ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and to produce
the case dockets of the tax refunds granted to Limtuaco and La Tondea.

Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc

January 25, 2002
J. Mendoza

Topic: Ombudsman
Doctrine: The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over cases not within the ambit of the
Sandiganbayan.
Facts:
- Respondents were employed at the Office of the Southern Cultural
Communities (OSCC), Davao del Sur, Provincial Office, Digos, Davao del Sur
with salaries below grade 27
o Provincial officer, Special disbursement officer, Supply officer,
Inspector, Employee, Public Health Nurse, Development
Management Officer, Medical Officer, OIC of the sub-office
- Rs were charged with 11 counts of malversation through falsification, based
on alleged purchases of medicine and food assistance for cultural community
members, and one count of violation of R.A. No. 3019, 3(e), in connection
with the purchases of supplies for the OSCC without bidding/canvass
- Informations were filed by the Ombudsman in the Regional Trial Court of
Digos, Davao del Sur, where they were docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
374(97) to 385(97), and assigned to Branch 19 of the court since none of the
respondents has the rank required under R.A. No. 8249 to be tried for the
said crimes in the Sandiganbayan
o Rs moved to quash based on the ruling in Uy v. Sandiganbayan that
the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute graft cases falling
within the jurisdiction of regular courts
- P filed the instant petition stating that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
is not parallel to nor to be equated with the broader jurisdiction of the Office
of the Ombudsman
Issue: WON the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction even if the case is not
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Held: Yes! The OMB has jurisdiction over the case
Ratio:
- The Ombudsman has powers to prosecute not only graft cases within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular
courts
- The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman
is plenary and unqualified

Pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee

when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient
The reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
should not be construed as confining the scope of the investigatory and
prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to such cases.
o The exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the
discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses
committed by public officers and employees
o The powers granted by the legislature to the Ombudsman are very
broad and encompass all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-
feasance committed by public officers and employees during their
tenure of office.
Jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with the
limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of RA 6770
o Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office
of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and
control and upon authority of the Ombudsman = CRIMINAL CASES
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
o law allows him to utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate
any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to
act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation
and prosecution of certain cases
o

WHEREFORE, the order, dated October 7, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, branch
19 of Digos, Davao del Sur is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case Nos. 374(97) to 385(97)
are hereby REINSTATED and the Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to try and decide
the same.
SO ORDERED.

Fuentes vs Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao

October 23, 2001
Pardo, J.

Doctrine: It is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court
personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any
violation of the laws of the land. No other branch of government may intrude into this
power, without running afoul of the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of
separation of powers

Facts:
Pursuant to the governments plan to construct its first flyover in Davao City,
the RP filed an expropriation case against the owners of the properties
affected by the project
The expropriation case was presided by Judge Renato A. Fuentes. The
government won the expropriation case. DPWH still owed the defendants-lot
owners. The lower court granted a writ of execution against the DPWH to
satisfy unpaid claims
On May 3, 1994, respondent Sheriff Paralisan issued a Notice of Levy,
addressed to the Regional Director of the DPWH, Davao City, describing the
properties subject of the levy as All scrap iron/junks found in the premises of
the Department of Public Works and Highways depot at Panacan, Davao City
The auction sale pushed through and Alex Bacquial emerged as the highest
bidder
Meanwhile, Alex Bacquial, together with respondent Sheriff Paralisan,
attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties on May 19, 1994
The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao recommended that Judge Renato A.
Fuentes be charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Republic Act
No. 3019, Section 3 (e) and likewise be administratively charged before the
Supreme Court with acts unbecoming of a judge
Director Valenzuela filed with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Mindanao a criminal complaint charging Judge Rentao A. Fuentes with
violation of RA 3019, Section 3 (e)
Fuentes filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao a motion to
dismiss complaint and/or manifestation to forward all records to the
Supreme Court
Petitioner alleged that the respondent Ombudsman-Mindanao committed a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he
initiated a criminal complaint against petitioner for violation of R.A. No. 3019,
Section 3 [e]. And he conducted an investigation of said complaint against
petitioner. Thus, he encroached on the power of the Supreme Court of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel

Issue: Whether the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the
exercise of his official functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, in the absence of an administrative charge for the same acts before the
Supreme Court.

Held: The Ombudsman cannot investigate the acts of the judge

Ratio:
Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides:
Section 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority, Exceptions.- The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials
of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including
members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by
impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.

Thus, the Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or
administrative complaint before his office against petitioner judge, pursuant
to his power to investigate public officers. The Ombudsman must indorse the
case to the Supreme Court, for appropriate action
Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme
Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from
the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial
court clerk
Hence, it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court
personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they
commit any violation of the laws of the land. No other branch of government
may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the independence of
the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers
Petitioners questioned order directing the attachment of government
property and issuing a writ of execution were done in relation to his office,
well within his official functions. The order may be erroneous or void for lack
or excess of jurisdiction. However, whether or not such order of execution
was valid under the given circumstances, must be inquired into in the course
of the judicial action only by the Supreme Court that is tasked to supervise
the courts. No other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution
or investigation service of any other branch, not any functionary thereof, has
competence to review a judicial order or decision--whether final and
executory or not--and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a
criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or
order.

Ledesma v. CA
July 29, 2005
Ynares-Santiago, J.:

Doctrine: RA 6770 intended to provide the Office of the Ombudsman with sufficient
muscle to ensure that it can effectively carry out its mandate as protector of the
people against inept and corrupt government officers and employees. It was given
disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and
its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies (with the exception of impeachable
officers).
Relevant Law: 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 13 (1)
The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
(2)
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
official or employee at fault and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution and ensure compliance therewith.
Facts:
Petitioner Atty. Ledesma is the Chairman of the First Division of the Board of
Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID).
Augusto Somalio filed a complaint with the Ombudsman alleging anomalies
surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas of 2 foreign
nationals. The investigation revealed 7 other similar cases.
As a result of the investigation, a complaint was filed before the
Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Ombudsman. The complaint was
both an administrative and criminal complaint for 9 counts of dishonesty,
grave misconduct, falsification of public documents and gross neglect of duty,
and for 9 counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
respectively. The Graft Investigation Officer Marlyn Reyes resolved the
administrative cases against petitioner. (2 people were also charged, Atty.
Caronongan and Elena Ang, but the complaints against them were dismissed).
The Ombudsman affirmed the resolution of the Graft Investigation Officer but
lowered the penalty to 9 months suspension without pay from the 1 year
suspension. The CA affirmed with modification, further reducing the penalty
to 6 months and 1 day.
Issue / Held:
WON the decision or order that emanates from the Office of the Ombudsman has any
binding power. YES. Petitioner lost the case.
The petitioner argues that the Ombudsmans actions are only advisory in nature
rather than one having any binding effect.

Ratio:
The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the 1987
Constitution. The Ombudsman and his deputies, are mandated to act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or
employees of the Government.
The proper interpretation of the Constitution is that the Ombudsman has the
authority to determine the administrative liability of a public official or
employee at fault, and direct and compel the head of the office or agency
concerned to implement the penalty imposed. The word recommend must
be take in conjunction with the phrase and ensure compliance therewith.
Moreover, RA 6770, Section 15 (3), states:
3. Direct the officer concerned to take the appropriate action against a
public officer or employee at fault Provided, that the refusal by any
officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman
to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or
employee shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said
officer.
The foregoing interpretation is consistent with the wisdom and spirit behind the
creation of the Office of the Ombudsman as can be gleaned from the records of the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.

As also held in Uy vs. Sandiganbayan:
The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to prosecute erring
public officers and employees, giving him an active role in the enforcement of
laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses that may be
committed by such officers and employees.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.

ESTARIJA v RANADA
Jun 26, 2006
Quisumbing, J.

Topic: Extent of Authority of the Ombudsman

Provisions Involved
Sec 13, Art XI, 1987 Constitution
The office of the Ombudsman shall have the ff powers, functions, and duties:

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith

Sec 15 Par 3, RA 6770
The office of the Ombudsman shall have the ff powers, functions, and duties:

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
officer or employee at fault or who neglect to perform an act or discharge a duty
required by law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority as
provided in Section 21 of this Act: provided, that the refusal by any officer without
just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote,
fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to
perform an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary
action against said officer;


Doctrine
The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given
teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. Thus,
under RA 6770 and the Constitution, the Ombudsman has the power to directly
remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of
Congress and the Judiciary.

Facts
Respondent, a member of the Davao Pilots Association (DPAI) and Davao Tugboat and
Allied Services filed an administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct before the
Ombudsman against petitioner, Harbor Master of the Philippine Ports Authority, Port
of Davao. Petitioner was alleged to have been demanding monies for the approval and
issuance of berthing permits and a monthly contribution form the DPAI.

Ombudsman preventively suspended him and eventually found him guilty of
dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Petitioner filed an MR with the Ombudsman assailing the constitutionality of his
dismissal since the Ombudsman did not have the direct power to remove officials. MR

was denied. Petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality again with the CA, but was
also denied by the latter.




Issue
WON it is within the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove, suspend, demote,
fine, or censure erring officials

Held
YES. Petition denied.

Ratio
Art XI Sec 13 of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the powers of the Ombudsman
while RA 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of
the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, Congress deliberately endowed the
Ombudsman with the power to prosecute offenses committed by public officers and
employees to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring
accountability in public office. Moreover, the legislature has vested the Ombudsman
with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.
In Ledesma v CA, it was held that the framers of the 1987 Constitution gave Congress
the discretion to give the Ombudsman powers that are not merely persuasive in
character. Thus, in addition to the power of the Ombudsman to prosecute and conduct
investigations, the lawmakers intended to provide the Ombudsman with the power to
punish for contempt and preventively suspend any officer under his authority
pending an investigation when the case so warrants. He was likewise given
disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government,
except for members of Congress and Judiciary.

Ombudsman v Masing

2008
Puno, C.J.

DOCTRINE:
The Ombudsmans order to remove, censure or prosecute an officer or ee is
not merely advisory by mandatory. The Ombudsman has full administrative
and disciplinary authority

FACTS:
Masing was former principal of the Davao City Integrated Special School
o Administratively charged in the office of the Ombudsman for
allegedly collecting unauthorized fees
Violation of code of conduct and ethical standards for public
officials and EEs (RA6713)
o Complaint filed by parents of students in the school
Masing moved for dismissal, alleging that Ombudsman had no jurisdiction
denied
o Argued that it should be filed with DECS, who would organize a
committee to hear the dispute in accordance with RA 4760 (magna
carta for pub school teachers)
Ombudsman found them guilty and denied their motion for recon brought
the case to the CA (reversed)
o CA ordered Masing to be reinstated with backwages
Ombudsman filed omnibus motion to intervene with CA, CA denied because
of 2 grounds:
o Intervention is improper QJ whose decision is on appeal cannot
intervene
o Intervention is late
Complainant parents f
Ombudsman filed petition for review on certiorari to SC alleging
o CA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Ombudsman
had no authority to discipline erring members of the DECS

ISSUE(S):
1. WON Ombudsman may intervene with decisions of CA? YES
2. WON Ombudsman may directly discipline public school teachers? - YES

HELD/RATIO (per issue):
1. YES, the Ombudsman may intervene provided the circumstances show that
the rulings adversely affected the all-important jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman
a. The ruling of the CA has a serious consequence on Ombudmans
effectiveness as the body charged by the constitution with the

2.

prosecution of officials and EEs of the government suspected of

violating our laws on graft and corruption
b. Denial of intervention based on Rule 19 of ROC SC says this is a
procedural rule that should not be made to hinder or delay the
administration of justice. Intervention may be allowed even beyond
the period in the rule in the higher interest of justice
c. Constantino-David v Pangandaman-Gania CSC/QJ body may seek a
review of the decisions of the CA that are detrimental to its
constitutional mandate
YES, Ombudsman is empowered by the constitution to be an Activist
Watchman, not merely a passive one
a. In view of Article XI, sections 11 and 12 (powers functions and duties
of Ombudsman) as well as RA6770 (Ombudsman act), the manifest
intent of lawmakers was to bestow on the Ombudsman full
administrative disciplinary authority
b. Ledesma v CA - Ombudsman has the authority to determine the
administrative liability of a public official or employee at fault, and
direct and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to
implement the penalty imposed.
c. Ombudsman v Laja Ombudsmans order is not merely advisory but
mandatory
d. Complainants cannot use Fabella v CA to assert the DECSs
jurisdiction over the dispute
i. In Fabella, the complaint was filed with DECS pursuant to
violations of CSC regulations imposed for DECS employees
ii. In this case, the complaint was filed directly with the
Ombudsman for violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Pub Officials and EEs (RA 6713)

Samson v. Restrivera
March 28, 2011
Villarama, Jr., J.

Topic: Extent of Ombudsmans Powers
Doctrine: Even if the complaint concerns an act of the public official or employee
which is not service-connected, the case is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of the public official
or employee that the Ombudsman may investigate.

FACTS:
Petitioner Filipina Samson, a govt employee, is the department head of the
Population Commision with the Office of the Provicial Capitol in Cavite.
March 2001: Samson agreed to help her friend, respondent Julia Restrivera,
to have the latters land in Carmona, Cavite, registered under the Torrens
System. She accepted P50,000 from Restrivera to cover initial expenses.
However, Samson failed to accomplish it because the land was found out to
be govt property.
Upon failing to return the money, Restrivera sued her for estafa and also filed
an administrative complaint for grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming of
a public officer against Samson before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman: found Samson guilty of violating Sec. 4(b) of RA 6713 and
suspended her for 6 months without pay (later reduced to 3 months). She
embarked on her private interest to help a friend secure a certificate of title
over the latters land and created a perception that shes a fixer, contrary to
Sec. 4(b) of RA 6713 which mandates that public officials and employees shall
endeavor to discourage wrong perception of their roles as dispenser of
peddler of undue patronage. Her act to restore the P50,000 was only to avoid
possible sanction.
CA: affirmed Ombudsmans Order and ruled that the Ombudsman has
jurisdiction even if the act complained of is a private matter. CA stressed that
Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 requires petitioner to perform and discharge
her duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence
and skill, and to endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of her role as a
dispenser and peddler of undue patronage
Hence, present petition.

ISSUES:
1. WON Ombudsman has jurisdiction over a case involving a private dealing by
a govt employee or where the act complained of is not related to the
performance of official duty (MAIN)
2. WON Samson could be held administratively liable even if the estafa case
against her was dismissed



HELD:

investigate. It does not require that the act or omission be related to or be

connected with or arise from the performance of official duty. Since the law
does not distinguish, neither should we.

1. YES. Ombudsman has jurisdiction over respondents complaint against

petitioner although the act complained of involves a private deal
between them.

Petitioner Samson
Where the act complained of is
not related to the performance of
official duty, the Ombudsman has
no jurisdiction.
Imputes grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the CA
for holding her administratively
liable. She points out that
the estafa case was dismissed
upon a finding that she was not

guilty of fraud or deceit, hence
misconduct cannot be attributed
to her.
Even assuming that she is guilty
of misconduct, she is entitled to
the benefit of mitigating
circumstances such as the fact
that this is the first charge
against her in her long years of
public service.

Respondent Restrivera
The issues raised in the instant
petition are the same issues that
the CA correctly resolved.
Alleges that petitioner failed to
observe the mandate that public
office is a public trust when she
meddled in an affair that belongs
to another agency and received
an amount for undelivered work.

Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman
can investigate on its own or on complaint by any person any act or omission
of any public official or employee when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, or improper. Under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance
committed by any public officer or employee during his/her tenure. Section
19 of R.A. No. 6770 also states that the Ombudsman shall act on all
complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are unfair or
irregular.
Thus, even if the complaint concerns an act of the public official or employee
which is not service-connected, the case is within the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman. The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or
omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may

2. YES, she could be held administratively liable. It is wrong for Samson to say that
since the estafa case against her was dismissed, she cannot be found administratively
liable. It is settled that administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal
proceedings, and may continue despite the dismissal of the criminal charges.