Updates on Public

Officers and
Ombudsman
Proceedings
Atty. Cornelio Erwin Grino III
 1. Cases on Non-Career Service

a. The Chair of the Commission on Filipino

Language is a non-career official whose tenure is
fixed by RA 7104. She cannot be removed by the
appointing power without cause (Office of the
President vs. Buenaobra, 501 SCRA 303).

b. A non-career service employee is also protected

from removal or suspension without just cause and
non-observance of due process (Jocom vs. Robredo,
201 SCRA 730).
2. An appointment takes effect immediately upon issue
by the appointing authority if the appointee assumes the
duties of the office immediately and shall remain
effective until it is approved by the Civil Service
Commission (Argel vs. Singson, GR no. 202970, 25 March
2015).

3. Career Executive Service (CES)

4. Concurrence of Jurisdiction: Where concurrent

jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body that first
takes cognizance of the complaint exercises jurisdiction
to the exclusion of others (Puse vs. Santos-puse, 615
SCRA 513).
5. Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Florida vs.
Sunga, 368 SCRA 551). The Ombudsman has the
discretion whether or not it would investigate a
particular administrative offense if the complaint was
filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or
omission complained of (Bibas vs. Ombudsman, 559
SCRA 592).

6. Preventive Suspension Issued by the Ombudsman

Pending Investigation
* Sec. 24, 6770
* Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207
* Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 646
* Office of the Ombudsman vs. Capulong, 12
March 2014.
7. The right to counsel is not indispensable in an
administrative proceeding (Vivo vs. PAGCOR, 12
November 2013).

8. Respondent cannot be convicted of the offense with

which he was not charged (CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA
560).

9. Withdrawal of the complaint or desistance of the

complainant does not justify the dismissal of the
complaint (Jacob vs. Tambo, 369 SCRA 148).

10. Rule: An administrative case is no longer prosper

against a public officer who had resigned prior to the
complaint (Jacob vs. Tambo, 369 SCRA 148).
11. Rule: Death of respondent public officer does not
preclude a finding of administrative liability (Loyao vs.
Caube, 402 SCRA 33).
Exceptions: When there is denial of due process:
equitable and humanitarian reasons: penalty imposed
would render the proceedings useless (Mercado vs. Salcedo,
16 Ocrober 2009).

12. Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation is abandoned,

but the abandonment is prospective (Carpio-Morales vs. CA
GR no. 217126-27, 10 November 2015).

13. Any Defect in observance of due process is cured by

filling a motion for reconsideration, and denial of due
process cannot be invoked by a party who was afforded
opportunity to be heard (Gonzales vs. CSC, 15 June 2006).
14. Previous Supreme Court rulings stating the Civil Service
Law does not allow a review of decisions exonerating
public officers from the administrative charges are
abandoned. The CSC, as the party aggrieved by the CA
decision, may appeal via certiorari to the Supreme Court
(CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426).

15. Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act providing that

administrative decisions (in all other cases) of the Office of
the Ombudsman may appealed to the Supreme Court is
unconstitutional: such appeal should be taken to the Court
of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Acuna vs.
Ombudsman, 450 SCRA 232).
16. The Remedy from a decision of the Ombudsman
imposing only the penalties of reprimand, suspension of
not more than 30 days, or a fine equivalent to one
month salary, is a special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of
Appeals (Ruivivar vs. Ombudsman, 565 SCRA 324).

17. Jurisprudence upholding the immediate

implementation of decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases pending appeal under Sec. 7, Rule
III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure:
* Ombudsman vs. Samaniego, 05 October 2010
* Villasenor vs. Ombudsman, 04 June 2014
18. In case of exoneration of the respondent in an
administrative case, complainant’s remedy is to file a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of
Appeals ( Reyes Jr. vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 31).

19. Even if the ombudsman was not impleaded as a party in

the proceedings questioning the administrative decision of
the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman may validly intervene
therein as it has a clear legal interest on the matter
(Ombudsman vs. De chaves, 700 SCRA 399).

20. The Court of Appeals cannot review the order of

decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-
administrative cases (Golangco vs. Fung, 4504 SCRA 321).
21. The remedy of the aggrieved parties from the
resolutions of the office of the Ombudsman in criminal
cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to
file an original action for certiorari with the Supreme
Court (Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman, 380 SCRA 325).

22. The President as the appointing authority, has the

corollary power to remove and/or discipline
presidential appointees (Pichay vs. Ochoa, 24 July 2012).
23. Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act vesting to the
President the power to remove the Deputy Ombudsman is
unconstitutional. The President does not have the
disciplinary authority over the office of the Ombudsman as
this power is lodged with the Ombudsman so as not to
affect the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.
However, the President retains disciplinary Authority over
the Special Prosecutor (Gonzales vs. Office of the President,
28 January 2014).

24. Cases on the constitutional and statutory requirement

for the filing of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net
worth:
* Ombudsman vs. Rancho, GR No. 185685, 31 January 2011
* Flores vs. Montemayor, 629 SCRA 178
* Concerned Taxpayer vs. Doblado, Jr., 459 SCRA 356
THANK YOU VERY MUCH..