Lawyerly

GR No. 197307

2014-02-26

FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VELASCO JR., J.

the basic complaint on August 20, 2003[31] when the ruling in Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman[32] had still controlling sway. To petitioners, Tapiador enunciated the dictum that the Ombudsman's disciplinary power is only to recommend, the power to suspend and dismiss erring personnel being vested in the head of the office concerned. As a corollary point, petitioners also advance the argument that the legal situation changed only when Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals[33] and Ombudsman v. Samaniego[34] were decided in June 2006 and September 2008, respectively. We are not impressed.

GR No. 165132

2012-03-07

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO

BRION, J.

We affirmed and consistently applied this ruling in the cases of Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII,[41] Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing,[42] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[43] Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja,[44] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[45] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lucero,[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[47]

GR No. 180236

2012-01-17

GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Subsequently, in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,[54] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[55] the Court upheld the Ombudsman's power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, we held that the exercise of such power is well founded in the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, thus: The Court further explained in Ledesma that the mandatory character of the Ombudsman's order imposing a sanction should not be interpreted as usurpation of the authority of the head of office or any officer concerned. This is because the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official is not an exclusive authority but a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. By stating therefore that the Ombudsman "recommends" the action to be taken against an erring officer or employee, the provisions in the Constitution and in Republic Act No. 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer.

GR No. 168039

2009-06-05

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FERNANDO J. BELTRAN

PERALTA, J.

In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court, citing Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman,[25] recognized the foregoing enumeration was not exclusive, and that the framers of the Constitution had given Congress the leeway to prescribe, by subsequent legislation, additional powers to the Ombudsman.

GR No. 160596

2009-03-20

REPUBLIC v. IGNACIO BAJAO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

have long been resolved by the Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Armilla,[22] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos,[23] and Herrera v. Bohol.[24]

GR No. 177580

2008-10-17

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. VICTORIO N. MEDRANO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Pursuant to the constitutional command, Congress enacted R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) providing for the functional, structural organization, and the extent of the administrative disciplinary authority of the petitioner.[28] The provisions of this law "apply to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance" committed by any officer or employee of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, "during his tenure in office."[29] The acts or omissions which the petitioner may investigate are quite extensive:SEC. 19. Administrative Complaints.- The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which:

GR No. 166658

2008-04-30

EUSTAQUIO B. CESA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

QUISUMBING, J.

The 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman has the power to recommend the suspension of erring government officials and ensure compliance therewith,[26] which means that the recommendation is not merely advisory but mandatory.[27] Under Republic Act No. 6770[28] and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.[29] The framers of our Constitution intended to create a stronger and more effective Ombudsman, independent and beyond the reach of political influences and vested with powers that are not merely persuasive in character.[30] The lawmakers envisioned the Ombudsman to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive one.[31]

GR No. 159883

2008-03-31

DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG v. CA

VELASCO JR., J.

The Office of the Ombudsman's assertion, about being in possession of full administrative disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, except impeachable officials, members of Congress, and the Judiciary, including the power to determine the penalty therefor and to cause the same to be implemented by the head of the government agency concerned, is correct. Jurisprudence on the matter is settled. Accordingly, any suggestion that its power to remove, suspend, or censure is merely advisory or recommendatory has to be rejected outright. And the CA's reference to Tapiador[29] to underpin its conclusion on the recommendatory nature of the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority is misplaced and erroneous, the cited portion of Tapiador being a mere obiter dictum. The Court made this abundantly clear in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals[30] and subsequently in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[31] In Ledesma, we held that the pronouncement in Tapiador on the authority of the Ombudsman is at most an obiter dictum, which cannot be cited as a doctrinal pronouncement of the Court, ratiocinating as follows: Petitioner insists that the word "recommend" be given its literal meaning; that is, that the Ombudsman's action is only advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect, citing Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, thus:

GR No. 168892

2008-03-24

DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR VISAYAS PRIMO C. MIRO v. CLETO ABUGAN

CORONA, J.

In Office of the Ombudsman v. CA,[19] we affirmed the aforecited statutory provisions by declaring that the Office of the Ombudsman "was intended to possess full administrative disciplinary authority," that is, it could directly impose administrative sanctions on erring government officials. In the same case, we said that the exercise of such power was "well founded in the Constitution and RA 6770." We declared:The provisions in [RA] 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and necessarily, impose the said penalty.

GR No. 174045

2008-03-07

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LALINETH LISONDRA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Sec. 12. 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 cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.[12] Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution enumerates the powers, functions, and duties of the OMB:Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:

GR No. 169982

2007-11-23

SALVADOR A. PLEYTO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. The authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is beyond cavil. Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, intended to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. The provisions of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.[69]

GR NO. 154678

2007-07-17

CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. NESTOR JUNIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is settled that the Office of Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority.[43]

GR NO. 168079

2007-07-17

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

More at point is the Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[12] In that case, the Office of the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of simple misconduct and meted on them the penalty of suspension for one month. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the Office of the Ombudsman that respondents were guilty of simple misconduct but ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing on them the penalty of suspension for one month. The Court of Appeals also cited Tapiador in ruling that the power of the Office of the Ombudsman is limited only to the recommendation of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault.

GR NO. 168670

2007-04-13

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. HEIDI M. ESTANDARTE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and necessarily, impose the said penalty.[55]

GR NO. 168718

2006-11-24

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FARIDA T. LUCERO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The issue raised in this Court has already been resolved in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[10] In that case, the Court declared that in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, the 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. The Court stated that this was the manifest intent of the legislature:All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.

GR NO. 167844

2006-11-22

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

In our recent ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[8] we reiterated Ledesma and expounded that taken together, the relevant provisions[9] of RA 6770 vested petitioner with "full administrative disciplinary authority" including the power to "determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty," thus:[The] provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.[10] (Italicization in the original; boldfacing supplied)

	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
the basic complaint on August 20, 2003[31] when the ruling in Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman[32] had still controlling sway. To petitioners, Tapiador enunciated the dictum that the Ombudsman's disciplinary power is only to recommend, the power to suspend and dismiss erring personnel being vested in the head of the office concerned. As a corollary point, petitioners also advance the argument that the legal situation changed only when Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals[33] and Ombudsman v. Samaniego[34] were decided in June 2006 and September 2008, respectively. We are not impressed.
	GR No. 165132 2012-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO BRION, J.
We affirmed and consistently applied this ruling in the cases of Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII,[41] Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing,[42] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[43] Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja,[44] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[45] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lucero,[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[47]
	GR No. 180236 2012-01-17	GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Subsequently, in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,[54] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[55] the Court upheld the Ombudsman's power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, we held that the exercise of such power is well founded in the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, thus: The Court further explained in Ledesma that the mandatory character of the Ombudsman's order imposing a sanction should not be interpreted as usurpation of the authority of the head of office or any officer concerned. This is because the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official is not an exclusive authority but a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. By stating therefore that the Ombudsman "recommends" the action to be taken against an erring officer or employee, the provisions in the Constitution and in Republic Act No. 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer.
	GR No. 168039 2009-06-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FERNANDO J. BELTRAN PERALTA, J.
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court, citing Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman,[25] recognized the foregoing enumeration was not exclusive, and that the framers of the Constitution had given Congress the leeway to prescribe, by subsequent legislation, additional powers to the Ombudsman.
	GR No. 160596 2009-03-20	REPUBLIC v. IGNACIO BAJAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
have long been resolved by the Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Armilla,[22] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos,[23] and Herrera v. Bohol.[24]
	GR No. 177580 2008-10-17	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. VICTORIO N. MEDRANO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Pursuant to the constitutional command, Congress enacted R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) providing for the functional, structural organization, and the extent of the administrative disciplinary authority of the petitioner.[28] The provisions of this law "apply to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance" committed by any officer or employee of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, "during his tenure in office."[29] The acts or omissions which the petitioner may investigate are quite extensive:SEC. 19. Administrative Complaints.- The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which:
	GR No. 166658 2008-04-30	EUSTAQUIO B. CESA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN QUISUMBING, J.
The 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman has the power to recommend the suspension of erring government officials and ensure compliance therewith,[26] which means that the recommendation is not merely advisory but mandatory.[27] Under Republic Act No. 6770[28] and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.[29] The framers of our Constitution intended to create a stronger and more effective Ombudsman, independent and beyond the reach of political influences and vested with powers that are not merely persuasive in character.[30] The lawmakers envisioned the Ombudsman to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive one.[31]
	GR No. 159883 2008-03-31	DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The Office of the Ombudsman's assertion, about being in possession of full administrative disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, except impeachable officials, members of Congress, and the Judiciary, including the power to determine the penalty therefor and to cause the same to be implemented by the head of the government agency concerned, is correct. Jurisprudence on the matter is settled. Accordingly, any suggestion that its power to remove, suspend, or censure is merely advisory or recommendatory has to be rejected outright. And the CA's reference to Tapiador[29] to underpin its conclusion on the recommendatory nature of the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority is misplaced and erroneous, the cited portion of Tapiador being a mere obiter dictum. The Court made this abundantly clear in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals[30] and subsequently in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[31] In Ledesma, we held that the pronouncement in Tapiador on the authority of the Ombudsman is at most an obiter dictum, which cannot be cited as a doctrinal pronouncement of the Court, ratiocinating as follows: Petitioner insists that the word "recommend" be given its literal meaning; that is, that the Ombudsman's action is only advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect, citing Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, thus:
	GR No. 168892 2008-03-24	DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR VISAYAS PRIMO C. MIRO v. CLETO ABUGAN CORONA, J.
In Office of the Ombudsman v. CA,[19] we affirmed the aforecited statutory provisions by declaring that the Office of the Ombudsman "was intended to possess full administrative disciplinary authority," that is, it could directly impose administrative sanctions on erring government officials. In the same case, we said that the exercise of such power was "well founded in the Constitution and RA 6770." We declared:The provisions in [RA] 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and necessarily, impose the said penalty.
	GR No. 174045 2008-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LALINETH LISONDRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Sec. 12. 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 cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.[12] Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution enumerates the powers, functions, and duties of the OMB:Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
	GR No. 169982 2007-11-23	SALVADOR A. PLEYTO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. The authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is beyond cavil. Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, intended to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. The provisions of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.[69]
	GR NO. 154678 2007-07-17	CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. NESTOR JUNIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is settled that the Office of Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority.[43]
	GR NO. 168079 2007-07-17	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
More at point is the Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[12] In that case, the Office of the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of simple misconduct and meted on them the penalty of suspension for one month. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the Office of the Ombudsman that respondents were guilty of simple misconduct but ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing on them the penalty of suspension for one month. The Court of Appeals also cited Tapiador in ruling that the power of the Office of the Ombudsman is limited only to the recommendation of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault.
	GR NO. 168670 2007-04-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. HEIDI M. ESTANDARTE CALLEJO, SR., J.
All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and necessarily, impose the said penalty.[55]
	GR NO. 168718 2006-11-24	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FARIDA T. LUCERO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The issue raised in this Court has already been resolved in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[10] In that case, the Court declared that in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, the 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. The Court stated that this was the manifest intent of the legislature:All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.
	GR NO. 167844 2006-11-22	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
In our recent ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[8] we reiterated Ledesma and expounded that taken together, the relevant provisions[9] of RA 6770 vested petitioner with "full administrative disciplinary authority" including the power to "determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty," thus:[The] provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.[10] (Italicization in the original; boldfacing supplied)