Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA

This case has been cited 23 times or more.

	GR No. 192685 2013-07-31	OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.[48]
	GR No. 197299 2013-02-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RODRIGO V. MAPOY PER CURIAM
In this case, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the charges against respondents for grave misconduct and dishonesty. Records show that Matias sought the help of the police to entrap respondents who were illegally soliciting money from him. Hence, the CISU-NCRPO planned an entrapment operation which took place at the Century Park Hotel, Manila on October 8, 2003. Prior to the entrapment, Matias withdrew P300,000.00 from his bank,[23] which, in turn, recorded the serial numbers of the bills released.[24] During the entrapment, Mapoy received the white envelope containing P300,000.00 marked money from Matias and handed it over to Regalario from whom it was subsequently recovered. After their arrest, respondents were brought to the police station for investigation[25] and subsequently charged of the crime of robbery/extortion. To a reasonable mind, the foregoing circumstances are more than adequate to support the conclusion that respondents extorted money from Matias which complained act amounts to grave misconduct or such corrupt conduct inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constituting flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[26] Similarly, respondents have been dishonest in accepting money from Matias. Dishonesty has been held to include the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle, lack of fairness and straightforwardness, among others.[27] Hence, their dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties was in order.
	GR No. 175115 2009-12-23	LILY O. ORBASE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
R.A. No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing R.A. No. 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.[22] Thus, Section 21 thereof provides: SEC. 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. â€• 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.[23]
	GR NOS. 170615-16 2009-07-09	REPUBLIC v. RUFINO V. MIJARES QUISUMBING, J.
Having said that, we do not find respondents guilty of grave misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. And when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[32]
	GR No. 168039 2009-06-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FERNANDO J. BELTRAN PERALTA, J.
Congress thus enacted R.A. No. 6770 providing the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing R.A. No. 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.[26] Section 13 thereof restates the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman in this wise: Sec. 13. Mandate. - The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people.
	GR No. 178923 2008-11-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO L. MAGNO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrongful conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. On the other hand, when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[38]
	GR No. 175573 2008-09-11	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
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. The Office of the Ombudsman is a unique position in the 1987 Constitution.[11] The Ombudsman and his deputies function essentially as a complaints and action bureau.[12] Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) 6770[13] providing broad powers,[14] as well as a functional and structural organization, to the Office of the Ombudsman to enable it to perform its constitutionally-mandated functions.
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Estarija v. Ranada,[24] the Court reiterated its pronouncements in Ledesma and categorically stated:x x x [T]he Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically Section 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and employees, except members of Congress, and the Judiciary. To conclude, we hold that Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 are constitutionally sound. The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. Thus, we hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.[25] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 151121 2008-07-21	RUBEN S. GALERO v. CA NACHURA, J.
THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF PETITIONERS' DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.[18] Before we rule on these assigned errors, we note that petitioner belatedly questioned in his Reply[19] the scope of the Ombudsman's power and authority to dismiss government employees. If only to erase doubts as to the Ombudsman's power to impose the penalty of dismissal, we would like to stress the well-settled principle laid down in the two Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals[20] cases and in Estarija v. Ranada.[21]
	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.
For our purpose, only the third requisite is in question. Unequivocally, the law requires that the question of constitutionality of a statute must be raised at the earliest opportunity. In Matibag v. Benipayo, we held that the earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, if it was not raised in the pleadings before a competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.[50]
	GR No. 168892 2008-03-24	DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR VISAYAS PRIMO C. MIRO v. CLETO ABUGAN CORONA, J.
In Estarija v. Ranada,[20] we also stated:Through the enactment of RA 6670...the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and employees, except members of Congress and the Judiciary....[T]he powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. Thus, we hold that under RA 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the power to directly remove from government service an erring public official...(emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 145184 2008-03-14	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO NACHURA, J.
Furthermore, in Estarija v. Ranada,[15] in which petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770 in his motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's decision, we had occasion to state that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. The Ombudsman, therefore, acted in excess of its jurisdiction in delving into the constitutionality of the subject administrative and memorandum orders.
	GR No. 174045 2008-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LALINETH LISONDRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
So, this is a reversible disability, unlike that of a eunuch; it is not an irreversible disability.[13] (Emphases supplied.) Clearly, the Legislature, as it deems fit, may enact a statute that would identify with even more particularity or even add to the powers, functions, and duties of the OMB already enumerated in Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. In the exercise of this discretion, Congress thus enacted Republic Act No. 6770.
	GR No. 176409 2008-02-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO S. MIEDES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[23]
	GR Nos. 174902-06 2008-02-15	ALFREDO R. ENRIQUEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
These powers, functions and duties are aimed to enable respondent to be "a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office."[20] Unfortunately, respondent has transgressed its constitutional and statutory duties. When the Constitution enjoins respondent to "act promptly" on any complaint against any public officer or employee, it has the concomitant duty to speedily resolve the same. But respondent did not act promptly or resolve speedily petitioners' cases. The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman requires that the hearing officer is given a definite period of "not later than thirty (30) days" to resolve the case after the formal investigation shall have been concluded.[21] Definitely, respondent did not observe this 30-day rule.
	GR No. 135080 2007-11-28	ORLANDO L. SALVADOR v. PLACIDO L. MAPA NACHURA, J.
Furthermore, in Estarija v. Ranada,[21] where the petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6770 in his motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's decision, we had occasion to state that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. The Ombudsman, therefore, acted in excess of its jurisdiction in declaring unconstitutional the subject administrative and memorandum orders.
	GR NO. 161098 2007-09-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CELSO SANTIAGO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
At any rate, the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove an erring public official has been jurisprudentially settled. In Estarija v. Ranada,[11] we ruled:The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. Thus, we hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary. (Emphasis supplied).
	GR NO. 158672 2007-08-07	COA v. AGAPITO A. HINAMPAS GARCIA, J.
The answer, as laid out by recent jurisprudence, is a resounding NO. As this Court has already held in Ledesma v. CA[7] and Estarija v. Ranada,[8] the so-called Tapiador "doctrine," upon which the assailed CA decisions are based, is mere obiter.
	GR NO. 154678 2007-07-17	CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. NESTOR JUNIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
R. A. No. 6770, which provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman, was passed by Congress to deliberately endow 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, Congress has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.[44]
	GR NO. 168079 2007-07-17	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Estarija v. Ranada,[15] petitioner assailed as unconstitutional his dismissal from the service by the Ombudsman. Petitioner in Estarija alleged that the Ombudsman did not have direct and immediate power to remove government officials, whether elective or appointive, who are not removable by impeachment. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21, and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming that the powers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. The Court ruled in Estarija that under RA 6770 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.
	AM NO. P-07-2310 2007-04-19	NENITA Q. SULAPAS v. SAMUEL G. BASCO CORONA, J.
Grave misconduct manifests a clear intent to violate the law or a flagrant disregard of established rule.[7] Unfortunately, the complainant failed to substantiate her allegation of bad faith and improper motive on the part of respondent. Nonetheless, respondent should be held accountable for neglecting to perform his duty under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. His non-feasance was the cause of the complainant's failure to pay the legal fees and consequently, the delay in the execution of the July 13, 2001 court order.
	GR NO. 155088 2006-08-31	DR. MUSSOLINI C. BARILLO v. MARGARITO GERVACIO TINGA, J.
The ruling in Ledesma was recently reiterated in Estarija v. Ranada, et al.[27] where we held that far from restricting the powers of the Ombudsman, the Constitution gave Congress the discretion to spell out these powers. This Congress did through RA 6770 vesting in the Ombudsman the power to directly sanction erring government officials and employees, except only members of Congress and the Judiciary.