Lawyerly

GR No. 168157

2015-08-19

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Lastly, the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate and to prosecute is plenary and unqualified. The Congress has vested in the Ombudsman broad powers to enable the Ombudsman to implement her own actions.[33] Moreover, the Constitution vests in the Office of the Ombudsman the authority and duty to promulgate rules of procedure. Among such rules of procedure was Administrative Order No. 07,[34] dated April 10, 1990, as amended, clothing the investigating officer with the authority and the duty to dismiss outright a complaint for want of palpable merit, thus: RULE II

GR No. 173121

2013-04-03

FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING

BRION, J.

The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction extends only to public officials occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher.[22] Consequently, as we held in Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez,[23] any act or omission of a public officer or employee occupying a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and of the regular courts or other investigative agencies.[24]

GR No. 202242

2012-07-17

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

MENDOZA, J.

Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis, where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is founded or with which it is associated.[37] This is because a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases, and its meaning may, thus, be modified or restricted by the latter.[38] The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.[39] In short, every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of the body of the statute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases and its meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter.

GR No. 159883

2008-03-31

DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG v. CA

VELASCO JR., J.

As a final point, in Office of the Ombudsman, we stressed that the history of RA 6770 bears out the conclusion that Congress intended the Office of the Ombudsman to be "an activist watchman," not merely a passive one,[44] possessing full administrative disciplinary authority, including the power to impose the penalty of removal and to prosecute a public officer or employee found to be at fault. The Court, in Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[45] gave validation to the legislative intent adverted to.

GR No. 174045

2008-03-07

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LALINETH LISONDRA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Republic Act No. 6770[14] provides for the functional and structural organization of the OMB. In passing Republic Act No. 6770, Congress deliberately endowed the OMB 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.[15] Moreover, the Legislature has vested the OMB with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.[16]

GR No. 159410

2008-01-28

NIXON T. KUA v. ROBERT DEAN S. BARBERS

AZCUNA, J.

The foregoing declaration is but sensible since it is a basic rule in statutory construction "that the particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible."[26] Every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of the body of the statute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases and its meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter.[27]

GR NO. 169251

2006-12-20

DEMIE L. URIARTE v. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On July 12, 2001, the private prosecutor moved to reinstate the case,[36] claiming that the Supreme Court likewise declared in a Resolution in Uy v. Sandiganbayan[37] that the Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation, and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public employees not only those involving public officers within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

GR NO. 167844

2006-11-22

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

We see no reason to deviate from these rulings. They are consistent with our earlier observation that unlike the "classical Ombudsman model" whose function is merely to "receive and process the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel," the Philippine Ombudsman as protector of the people, 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. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.[11] (Emphasis supplied)

GR NO. 159314

2006-06-26

EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA

QUISUMBING, J.

Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act 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.[29] Moreover, the legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.[30]

GR NO. 160675

2006-06-16

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Senator Angara. I submit that the means, that is, the disciplinary power, is necessary to achieving that objective of making an effective Ombudsman.[36] The legislative history of Republic Act No. 6770 thus bears out the conclusion that the Office of the Ombudsman was intended to possess full administrative disciplinary authority, including 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. The lawmakers envisioned the Office of the Ombudsman to be "an activist watchman," not merely a passive one.[37] And this intent was given validation by the Court in Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[38] where it stated that: Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose function is merely to receive and process the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, 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. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. x x x At this point, it is noted that the Office of the Ombudsman and the appellate court invariably found respondents guilty of simple misconduct. The Court affirms this finding following the salutary rule that factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded great respect by this Court.[39]

GR No. 164250

2005-09-30

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ATTY. GIL A. VALERA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It 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…[30]

GR No. 161629

2005-07-29

ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is thus clear that 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. The Constitutional Commission left to Congress to empower the Ombudsman with prosecutorial functions which it did when RA 6770 was enacted. In the case of Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[30] it was held:Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose function is merely to receive and process the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, 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. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. ...[31]

GR Nos. 151380-91

2004-12-10

ENGR. JOSE K. TUPAZ v. SALVADOR Y. APURILLO

QUISUMBING, J.

Later, in a Resolution[12] promulgated on March 20, 2001, this Court, acting on a Motion for Clarification filed by the Ombudsman, set aside the August 9, 1999 Decision in Uy v. Sandiganbayan, as well as the February 22, 2000 Resolution denying reconsideration of the decision. This Court upheld the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, whether jurisdiction over those criminal cases lies with the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts.

GR No. 159747

2004-04-13

SAN II v. PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS OF DOJ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

A little over a month later, the Court, in Deloso vs. Domingo,[5] pronounced that the Ombudsman, under the authority of Section 13 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, has jurisdiction to investigate any crime committed by a public official, elucidating thus: As protector of the people, the office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty to "act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials" (Sec. 12) and to "investigate x x x any act or omission of any public official x x x when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." (Sec. 13[1].) The Ombudsman is also empowered to "direct the officer concerned," in this case the Special Prosecutor, "to take appropriate action against a public official x x x and to recommend his prosecution" (Sec. 13[3]).

GR No. 114944

2002-05-29

MANUEL C. ROXAS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Be that as it may, we recognize that the power to investigate offenses of this nature belongs to the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor.[16] While the Ombudsman may have erred in disregarding the recommendations of the Special Prosecution Officers which appear to be substantiated by the record, he should be allowed an opportunity to review his decision and, where necessary, correct it.

GR No. 115103

2002-04-11

BIR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

DE LEON, JR., J.

This contention of the BIR is baseless. The power to investigate and to prosecute which was granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified.[22] 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.[23]

	GR No. 168157 2015-08-19	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ BERSAMIN, J.
Lastly, the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate and to prosecute is plenary and unqualified. The Congress has vested in the Ombudsman broad powers to enable the Ombudsman to implement her own actions.[33] Moreover, the Constitution vests in the Office of the Ombudsman the authority and duty to promulgate rules of procedure. Among such rules of procedure was Administrative Order No. 07,[34] dated April 10, 1990, as amended, clothing the investigating officer with the authority and the duty to dismiss outright a complaint for want of palpable merit, thus: RULE II
	GR No. 173121 2013-04-03	FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING BRION, J.
The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction extends only to public officials occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher.[22] Consequently, as we held in Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez,[23] any act or omission of a public officer or employee occupying a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and of the regular courts or other investigative agencies.[24]
	GR No. 202242 2012-07-17	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis, where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is founded or with which it is associated.[37] This is because a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases, and its meaning may, thus, be modified or restricted by the latter.[38] The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.[39] In short, every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of the body of the statute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases and its meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter.
	GR No. 159883 2008-03-31	DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
As a final point, in Office of the Ombudsman, we stressed that the history of RA 6770 bears out the conclusion that Congress intended the Office of the Ombudsman to be "an activist watchman," not merely a passive one,[44] possessing full administrative disciplinary authority, including the power to impose the penalty of removal and to prosecute a public officer or employee found to be at fault. The Court, in Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[45] gave validation to the legislative intent adverted to.
	GR No. 174045 2008-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LALINETH LISONDRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Republic Act No. 6770[14] provides for the functional and structural organization of the OMB. In passing Republic Act No. 6770, Congress deliberately endowed the OMB 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.[15] Moreover, the Legislature has vested the OMB with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.[16]
	GR No. 159410 2008-01-28	NIXON T. KUA v. ROBERT DEAN S. BARBERS AZCUNA, J.
The foregoing declaration is but sensible since it is a basic rule in statutory construction "that the particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible."[26] Every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of the body of the statute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases and its meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter.[27]
	GR NO. 169251 2006-12-20	DEMIE L. URIARTE v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
On July 12, 2001, the private prosecutor moved to reinstate the case,[36] claiming that the Supreme Court likewise declared in a Resolution in Uy v. Sandiganbayan[37] that the Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation, and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public employees not only those involving public officers within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
	GR NO. 167844 2006-11-22	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
We see no reason to deviate from these rulings. They are consistent with our earlier observation that unlike the "classical Ombudsman model" whose function is merely to "receive and process the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel," the Philippine Ombudsman as protector of the people, 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. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.[11] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 159314 2006-06-26	EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA QUISUMBING, J.
Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act 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.[29] Moreover, the legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.[30]
	GR NO. 160675 2006-06-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Senator Angara. I submit that the means, that is, the disciplinary power, is necessary to achieving that objective of making an effective Ombudsman.[36] The legislative history of Republic Act No. 6770 thus bears out the conclusion that the Office of the Ombudsman was intended to possess full administrative disciplinary authority, including 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. The lawmakers envisioned the Office of the Ombudsman to be "an activist watchman," not merely a passive one.[37] And this intent was given validation by the Court in Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[38] where it stated that: Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose function is merely to receive and process the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, 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. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. x x x At this point, it is noted that the Office of the Ombudsman and the appellate court invariably found respondents guilty of simple misconduct. The Court affirms this finding following the salutary rule that factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded great respect by this Court.[39]
	GR No. 164250 2005-09-30	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ATTY. GIL A. VALERA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It 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…[30]
	GR No. 161629 2005-07-29	ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is thus clear that 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. The Constitutional Commission left to Congress to empower the Ombudsman with prosecutorial functions which it did when RA 6770 was enacted. In the case of Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[30] it was held:Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose function is merely to receive and process the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, 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. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. ...[31]
	GR Nos. 151380-91 2004-12-10	ENGR. JOSE K. TUPAZ v. SALVADOR Y. APURILLO QUISUMBING, J.
Later, in a Resolution[12] promulgated on March 20, 2001, this Court, acting on a Motion for Clarification filed by the Ombudsman, set aside the August 9, 1999 Decision in Uy v. Sandiganbayan, as well as the February 22, 2000 Resolution denying reconsideration of the decision. This Court upheld the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, whether jurisdiction over those criminal cases lies with the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts.
	GR No. 159747 2004-04-13	SAN II v. PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS OF DOJ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A little over a month later, the Court, in Deloso vs. Domingo,[5] pronounced that the Ombudsman, under the authority of Section 13 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, has jurisdiction to investigate any crime committed by a public official, elucidating thus: As protector of the people, the office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty to "act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials" (Sec. 12) and to "investigate x x x any act or omission of any public official x x x when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." (Sec. 13[1].) The Ombudsman is also empowered to "direct the officer concerned," in this case the Special Prosecutor, "to take appropriate action against a public official x x x and to recommend his prosecution" (Sec. 13[3]).
	GR No. 114944 2002-05-29	MANUEL C. ROXAS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Be that as it may, we recognize that the power to investigate offenses of this nature belongs to the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor.[16] While the Ombudsman may have erred in disregarding the recommendations of the Special Prosecution Officers which appear to be substantiated by the record, he should be allowed an opportunity to review his decision and, where necessary, correct it.
	GR No. 115103 2002-04-11	BIR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN DE LEON, JR., J.
This contention of the BIR is baseless. The power to investigate and to prosecute which was granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified.[22] 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.[23]

GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN