Ombudsman v. CA, GR No.

169079, July 17, 2007

Facts: Respondent, Ma. Melly Jaud Magbanua, was the Local Treasury Operations Assistant
of the City Treasurers Office in acolod City. On !" #ebruary $%%&, the Co''ission on Audit
(COA) conducted an e*a'ination of respondents cash and account. The e*a'ination disclosed
a shortage of +!,-,.-/. 0pon de'and, respondent failed to produce the 'issing a'ount.
Respondent alleged that the shortage was due to the 'achinations and dishonest acts of Cash
Cler1 2 Monina a3a (a3a). Respondent alleged that a3a, acting as +ay'aster, recei4ed payroll
funds for distribution to specific offices. 2n her li5uidation report, a3a reflected twice the 'issing
a'ount of +!,-,.-/ representing cash ad4ances.
The O'buds'an found respondent guilty of 6eglect of 7uty, and a3a guilty of 7ishonesty,
suspending Ma. Melly Jaud Magbanua and dis'issing Monina a3a.
0pon appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that while petitioners findings were correct, petitioner
has no power to i'pose directly sanctions against go4ern'ent officials and e'ployees who are
sub3ect of its in4estigation. +etitioners power is li'ited and it 'ay only reco''end, not i'pose,
the appropriate sanctions.
ssu!: whether the Office of the O'buds'an has the power to i'pose directly ad'inistrati4e
penalties on public officials or e'ployees.
Rul"n#: yes, section !$ of R.A. 6o. ,""/ 4est in the o'buds'an 8disciplinary authority o4er all
electi4e and appointi4e officials of the go4ern'ent9 e*cept i'peachable officers, 'e'bers of
congress, and the Judiciary. And under section !- of R.A 6o. ,""/, the o'buds'an 'ay
i'pose in ad'inistrati4e proceedings the 8penalty ranging fro' suspension without pay for one
year to dis'issal with forfeiture of benefits or a fine ranging fro' fi4e thousand pesos
(+-,///.//) to twice the a'ount 'al4ersed, illegally ta1en or lost, or both at the discretion of the
o'buds'an.9 Clearly, under R.A. no ,""/ the o'buds'an has the power to i'pose directly
ad'inistrati4e penalty on public officials or e'ployees.
$an##un"an# %a&an#ay v. 'unon# %a&an#ay, GR No. 170626, (a&c) *, 200+
#acts: +etitioner ;angguniang arangay is the legislati4e body of arangay 7on Mariano
Marcos, ayo'bong, 6ue4a <i=caya, a local go4ern'ent unit created, organi=ed and e*isting
as such under pertinent laws of the Republic of the +hilippines. Respondent Martine= is the
incu'bent +unong arangay of the said local go4ern'ent unit.
On - 6o4e'ber !//., Martine= was ad'inistrati4ely charged with 7ishonesty and >raft
and Corruption by petitioner through the filing of a 4erified co'plaint before the ;angguniang
ayan as the disciplining authority o4er electi4e barangay officials pursuant to ;ection ,$. of
Rep. Act 6o. "$,/, otherwise 1nown as the Local >o4ern'ent Code. +etitioner filed with the
;angguniang ayan an A'ended Ad'inistrati4e Co'plaint against Martine= on , 7ece'ber
!//. for 7ishonesty, Misconduct in Office and <iolation of the Anti?>raft and Corrupt +ractices
Act.
The ;angguniang ayan rendered its 7ecision which i'posed upon Martine= the
penalty of re'o4al fro' office.
The trial court issued an Order declaring the 7ecision of the ;angguniang ayan and the
Me'orandu' of Mayor agasao 4oid. 2t 'aintained that the proper courts, and not the
petitioner, are e'powered to re'o4e an electi4e local official fro' office.
ssu!: whether the ;angguniang ayan has 3urisdiction o4er a case in4ol4ing the re'o4al of a
local electi4e official fro' office.
Rul"n#: according to the local go4ern'ent code, electi4e officials 'ay be dis'issed only by the
proper court. 8where the disciplining authority is gi4en only the power to suspend and not the
power to re'o4e, it should only be per'itted to 'anipulate the law by usurping the power to
re'o4e9
2t is apparent that the ;angguniang ayan acted beyond its 3urisdiction when it issued
the assailed Order dated !& July !//- re'o4ing Martine= fro' office. ;uch act was patently
illegal and, therefore, Martine= was no longer re5uired to a4ail hi'self of an ad'inistrati4e
appeal in order to annul the said Order of the ;angguniang ayan. Thus, his direct recourse to
regular courts of 3ustice was 3ustified.
'!&!, v. $and"#anbayan, GR No. 166062, $!-t!mb!& 26, 2006
Facts: the Municipality of ;an Manuel, +angasinan, +hilippines, the accused, ;AL<A7OR
+@R@A, being then the Municipal Mayor and J0A62TA A+O;TOL, AA+A6TA, Municipal
Treasurer of said 'unicipality, conspiring and confederating with one another, co''itting the
cri'e herein charged in relation to and ta1ing ad4antage of their official functions, and through
'anifest partiality, e4ident bad faith or gross ine*cusable negligence, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and cri'inally cause the purchase of one ($) co'puter unit costing +$!/,///.//
ac5uisition by personal can4ass which is in 4iolation of ;ecs. B,! and B," of R.A. "$,/, thereby
causing undue in3ury to the Municipality of ;an Manuel, +angasinan.
+etitioners filed with the ;andiganbayan a Motion for Lea4e of Court to #ile Motion for
ReconsiderationCRein4estigation alleging the disco4ery of new e4idence which will change the
outco'e of the case if presented and appreciated. +etitioners were as1ed to for'ali=e their
Motion for Reconsideration in the Office of the O'buds'an, and said 'otion was co'plied.
The Office of the ;pecial +rosecutor conducted a rein4estigation. Assistant ;pecial +rosecutor
Darlito #. >alisanao prepared a Me'orandu' reco''ending the a'end'ent of the
2nfor'ation.
ssu!: Dhether or not there is a denial of procedural due process on the part of the petitioners
when the ;pecial +rosecutor filed the A'ended 2nfor'ation without authority fro' or the
appro4al of the Eonorable O'buds'an, and against the latters specific instruction
Rul"n#: The special prosecutor 'ay not file an infor'ation without authority fro' the
o'buds'an. Republic Act no. ,""/, by conferring upon the o'buds'an the power to
prosecute, li1ewise grants to the O'buds'an the power to authori=e the filing of infor'ation. A
delegated authority to prosecute was also gi4en to the 7eputy O'buds'an, but no such
delegation e*ists to the ;pecial +rosecutor. 6or is there an i'plied delegation. The ;pecial
+rosecutor prosecutes only when authori=ed by the O'buds'an.
%u!ncam"no v. CA, GR No. 17.+9., A-&"l /, 2007
Facts: @d'undo Jose T. uenca'ino, petitioner, is the incu'bent 'ayor of ;an Miguel,
ulacan, while Constantino +ascual, pri4ate respondent, is the president of Rose'oor Mining
and 7e4elop'ent Corporation, a co'pany engaged in the 'ining of 'arble bloc1s.
On August !", !//., pri4ate respondent filed with the Office of the O'buds'an, public
respondent, an ad'inistrati4e co'plaint against petitioner for gra4e 'isconduct, abuse of
authority, acts unbeco'ing of a public officer, and 4iolation of Republic Act (R.A.) 6o. B/$%
(Anti?>raft and Corrupt +ractices Act). 2n his co'plaint, pri4ate respondent alleged, a'ong
others, that the act of petitioner in de'anding pay'ent (without official receipt) of a Fpass wayF
fee or a regulatory fee of +$,///.// for e4ery deli4ery truc1 that passes the territorial 3urisdiction
of ;an Miguel, ulacan is illegal.
The Office of the O'buds'an declared petitioner ad'inistrati4ely liable for abuse of authority
and suspended hi' fro' office for a period of si* (,) 'onths without pay.
0pon appeal, The Court of Appeals ruled 8this Eonorable Court e'phatically declared that
;ection ", Rule 222 of the Rules of +rocedure of the Office of the O'buds'an was already
a'ended by Ad'inistrati4e Order 6o. $" wherein the pertinent pro4ision on the e*ecution of the
O'buds'ans decision pending appeal is now si'ilar to ;ection ." of the F0nifor' Rules on
Ad'inistrati4e Cases in the Ci4il ;er4iceF G that is, decisions of the O'buds'an are
i''ediately e*ecutory e4en pending appeal.9
The Office of the O'buds'an in its co''ent, ;ection ", Rule 222 of Ad'inistrati4e Order 6o. /"
has been a'ended by Ad'inistrati4e Order 6o. $".
ssu!: Dhether decisions of the O'buds'an are i''ediately e*ecutory e4en pending appeal
and whether Ad'inistrati4e Order 6o. $" should apply.
Rul"n#: A decision of the Office of the O'buds'an in ad'inistrati4e cases shall be e*ecuted as
a 'atter of course. The Office of the O'buds'an shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly
enforced and properly i'ple'ented. The refusal or failure by any officer without 3ust cause to
co'ply with an order of the Office of the O'buds'an to re'o4e, suspend, de'ote, fine, or
censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.
Clearly, considering that an appeal under Ad'inistrati4e Order 6o. $", the a'endatory rule,
shall not stop the 7ecision of the Office of the O'buds'an fro' being e*ecutory, we hold that
the Court of Appeals did not co''it gra4e abuse of discretion in denying petitioners application
for in3uncti4e relief.
($) The Office of the O'buds'an shall pro'ulgate its rules of procedure for the effecti4e
e*ercise or perfor'ance of its powers, functions and duties.
#urther'ore, under ;ection !" of R.A. 6o. ,""/, the Office of the O'buds'an has the power
to a'end or 'odify its rules as the interest of 3ustice 'ay re5uire.
(!d"na v. COA, GR No. 176/7+, F!b&ua&y /, 200+
Facts: +etitioner Lorna A. Medina guilty of gra4e 'isconduct and dishonesty. The ;tate
auditors of the +ro4incial Auditors Office of Ca4ite stated that they had e*a'ined petitioners
financial records co4ering $% August $%%% to !, ;epte'ber !/// and disco4ered a total cash
shortage in the aggregate a'ount of +.,/&/,,B$.B,.
COA, represented by the afore'entioned state auditors, filed an ad'inistrati4e case before the
Office of the 7eputy O'buds'an for Lu=on, charging petitioner with gra4e 'isconduct and
dishonesty. The 7eputy O'buds'an <ictor C. #ernande= appro4ed the reco''endation of the
>raft 2n4estigation and +rosecution Officer to dis'iss petitioner fro' ser4ice based on the
e*istence of substantial e4idence of a discrepancy in petitionerHIJs account totaling
+.,/&/,,B$.B,.
+etitioner sought reconsideration on grounds of newly disco4ered and 'aterial e4idence and
gra4e errors of fact andCor law pre3udicial to her own interest. The purported newly disco4ered
e4idence consisted of petitioners re5uest for reconsideration of the audit report filed and still
pending before the office of the audit tea' head, herein respondent Mawa1, and letters sent by
petitioners counsel to the pro4incial auditor of Ca4ite 5uestioning the audit and re5uesting a re?
audit of petitioners accounts.
2n4o1ing her right to due process, petitioner, on one hand, insists that she is entitled to a for'al
in4estigation, citing the Ad'inistrati4e Code of $%&", oo1 <, Title 2, ;ubtitle A, ;ection .& (!)
and (B). On the other hand, in support of its argu'ent that the propriety of conducting a for'al
in4estigation rests on the sound discretion of the hearing officer, respondent COA, through the
Office of the ;olicitor >eneral (O;>), relies on Ad'inistrati4e Order 6o. /", as a'ended by
Ad'inistrati4e Order 6o. $", Rule 222, ;ection -, go4erning the procedure in ad'inistrati4e
cases filed before the Office of the O'buds'an.
ssu!: whether petitioner was depri4ed of her right to due process.
Rul"n#: The pro4isions in the Ad'inistrati4e Code cited by petitioner in support of her theory
that she is entitled to a for'al in4estigation apply only to ad'inistrati4e cases filed before the
Ci4il ;er4ice Co''ission (C;C). 2n particular, ;ection .&(!) and ;ection .&(B) are subsu'ed
under ;ubtitle A of Title 2, which pertains to the C;C and to the procedure of ad'inistrati4e
cases filed before the C;C. The ad'inistrati4e co'plaint against petitioner was filed before the
Office of the O'buds'an, suggesting that a different set of procedural rules go4ern. And rightly
so, the 7eputy O'buds'an applied the pro4isions of Rules of +rocedure of the Office of the
O'buds'an in ruling that the prerogati4e to elect a for'al in4estigation pertains to the hearing
officer and not to petitioner.
One who is answering an ad'inistrati4e co'plaint filed before the o'buds'an 'ay not appeal
to the procedural rules under the Ci4il ;er4ice Co''ission.
0"llas No& v. $and"#anbayan, GR No. 1+0700, (a&c) /, 200+
Facts: +etitioners, >erardo <illasenor and Rodel Mesa, together with other officials of the City
@ngineering Office of Kue=on City, are facing cri'inal charges before the -th 7i4ision of the
;andiganbayan for the cri'e of 'ultiple ho'icide through rec1less i'prudence and for 4iolation
of ;ection B(e) of R.A. 6o. B/$%. They were also charged ad'inistrati4ely with gross
negligence, gross 'isconduct and conduct pre3udicial to the interest of the ser4ice in connection
with the Manor Eotel inferno. <illaseLor and Mesa were pre4enti4ely suspended for a period of
si* (,) 'onths.
Respondent special prosecutor Louella Mae Oco?+es5uera filed a 'otion for suspension
pendente lite of petitioners.
+etitioners opposed the 'otion, contending that they had already been suspended for si* (,)
'onths relati4e to the ad'inistrati4e case, based on the sa'e facts and circu'stances. They
posited that any pre4enti4e suspension that 'ay be warranted in the cri'inal case was already
absorbed by the pre4enti4e suspension in the ad'inistrati4e case because both the cri'inal
and ad'inistrati4e cases were anchored on the sa'e set of facts.
2n the assailed Resolution of July B, !//", respondent court granted the prosecutions 'otion for
suspension. 2t ordered the suspension of petitioners for a period of ninety (%/) days.
ssu!: Dhether or not the public respondent acted in e*cess of 3urisdiction andCCor with gra4e
abuse of discretion a'ounting to lac1 of 3urisdiction in ordering the suspension pendent lite of
herein petitioners despite the fact that they already been pre4iously suspended ad'inistrati4ely
on the sa'e facts and circu'stances.
Rul"n#: the suspension is 4alid. That pre4enti4e suspension is not a penalty is in fact e*plicitly
pro4ided by ;ection !. of Rule M2< of the O'nibus Rules 2'ple'enting oo1 < of the
Ad'inistrati4e Code of $%&" (@*ecuti4e Order 6o. !%!) and other +ertinent Ci4il ;er4ice Laws.
;ec. !.. +re4enti4e suspension is not a punish'ent or penalty for 'isconduct in office but is
considered to be a pre4enti4e 'easure.
A pre4enti4e suspension will only last ninety (%/) days, not the entire duration of the cri'inal
case li1e petitioners see' to thin1. 2ndeed, it would be constitutionally proscribed if the
suspension were to be an indefinite duration or for an unreasonable length of ti'e. The court
has thus laid down the rule that pre4enti4e suspension 'ay not e*ceed the 'a*i'u' period of
ninety (%/) days, in consonance with presidential decree 6o. &/", now ;ection -! of the
Ad'inistrati4e Code of $%&".
1onasan v. 'an!l o2 nv!st"#at"n# '&os!cuto&s 3 GR No. 1.97/7, A-&"l 1*, 200/
Facts: On ;epte'ber !!, !//B, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the
issuance of a te'porary restraining order and writ of preli'inary in3unction against respondents
alleging gra4e abuse of discretion on the part of respondent +anel for assu'ing 3urisdiction to
conduct the preli'inary in4estigation on the charge of coup detat against petitioner.
+etitioner, together with his counsel, appeared at the 7OJ. Ee filed a Motion for Clarification
5uestioning 7OJNs 3urisdiction o4er the case, asserting that since the i'puted acts were
co''itted in relation to his public office, it is the Office of the O'buds'an, not the 7OJ, that
has the 3urisdiction to conduct the corresponding preli'inary in4estigationO that should the
charge be filed in court, it is the ;andiganbayan, not the regular courts, that can legally ta1e
cogni=ance of the case considering that he belongs to the group of public officials with ;alary
>rade B$O and praying that the proceedings be suspended until final resolution of his 'otion.
ssu!: Dhether respondent 7epart'ent of Justice +anel of 2n4estigators has 3urisdiction to
conduct preli'inary in4estigation o4er the charge of coup dNetat against petitioner
Rul"n#: for purposes of in4estigation and prosecution, O'buds'an cases in4ol4ing cri'inal
offenses 'ay be subdi4ided into two classes, to wit: ($) those cogni=able by the
;andiganbayan, and (!) those falling under the 3urisdiction of the regular courts. The difference
between the two, aside fro' the category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on the authority
to in4estigate as distinguished fro' the authority to prosecute, such cases.
The power to in4estigate or conduct a preli'inary in4estigation on any O'buds'an case 'ay
be e*ercised by an in4estigator or prosecutor of the Office of the O'buds'an, or by any
+ro4incial or City +rosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities or as
deputi=ed O'buds'an prosecutors.
The prosecution of cases cogni=able by the ;andiganbayan shall be under the direct e*clusi4e
control and super4ision of the Office of the O'buds'an. 2n cases cogni=able by the regular
Courts, the control and super4ision by the Office of the O'buds'an is only in O'buds'an
cases in the sense defined abo4e. The law recogni=es a concurrence of 3urisdiction between the
Office of the O'buds'an and other in4estigati4e agencies of the go4ern'ent in the prosecution
of cases cogni=able by regular courts.
+etitioner insists that the O'buds'an has 3urisdiction to conduct the preli'inary in4estigation
because petitioner is a public officer with salary >rade B$ so that the case against hi' falls
e*clusi4ely within the 3urisdiction of the ;andiganbayan. Considering the CourtNs finding that the
7OJ has concurrent 3urisdiction to in4estigate charges against public officers, the fact that
petitioner holds a ;alary >rade B$ position does not by itself re'o4e fro' the 7OJ +anel the
authority to in4estigate the charge of coup dNetat against hi'.DE@R@#OR@, the petition for
certiorari is 72;M2;;@7 for lac1 of 'erit.
Ombudsman v. Rod&"#u!,, GR No. 172700, July 2*, 2010
Facts: On !, August !//B, the O'buds'an in <isayas recei4ed a co'plaint for abuse of
authority, dishonesty, oppression, 'isconduct in office, and neglect of duty against Rolson
Rodrigue=, punong barangay in rgy. ;to. Rosario, inalbagan, 6egros Occidental. The
sangguniang bayan of inalbagan, 6egros Occidental, through 4ice?'ayor Jose >. Pulo,
recei4ed a si'ilar co'plaint against Rodrigue= for abuse of authority, dishonesty, oppression,
'isconduct in office, and neglect of duty.
2n its & ;epte'ber !//B notice, the 'unicipal 4ice?'ayor re5uired Rodrigue= to sub'it his
answer within $- days fro' receipt of the notice. On !B ;epte'ber !//B, Rodrigue= filed a
'otion to dis'iss the case filed in the sangguniang bayan on the ground that the allegations in
the co'plaint were without factual basis and did not constitute any 4iolation of law. 2n a
co'pliance dated !! October !//B, Rodrigue= alleged co'plainants 4iolated the rule against
foru' shopping.
Co'plainants withdrew the ad'inistrati4e co'plaint filed in the sangguniang bayan. the
O'buds'an directed both parties to file their respecti4e 4erified position papers.
Rodrigue= insisted that the sangguniang bayan still continued to e*ercise 3urisdiction o4er the
co'plaint filed against hi'. Ee clai'ed he had not recei4ed any resolution or decision
dis'issing the co'plaint filed in the sangguniang bayan. 2n reply,$% co'plainants 'aintained
there was no 'ore co'plaint pending in the sangguniang bayan since the latter had granted
their 'otion to withdraw the co'plaint. 2n a re3oinder,!/ Rodrigue= a4erred that the
sangguniang bayan resolution dis'issing the case filed against hi' was not 4alid because only
the 4ice?'ayor signed it.
The O'buds'an found Rodrigue= guilty of dishonesty and oppression. 2t i'posed on
Rodrigue= the penalty of dis'issal fro' the ser4ice with forfeiture of all benefits, dis5ualification
to hold public office, and forfeiture of ci4il ser4ice eligibilities.
The Court of Appeals set aside for lac1 of 3urisdiction the 7ecision of the O'buds'an and
directed the sangguniang bayan to proceed with the hearing on the ad'inistrati4e case.
+etitioner O'buds'an contends that upon the filing of a co'plaint before a body 4ested with
3urisdiction, that body has ta1en cogni=ance of the co'plaint.
+ri4ate respondent Rolson Rodrigue= counters that when a co'petent body has ac5uired
3urisdiction o4er a co'plaint and the person of the respondent, other bodies are e*cluded fro'
e*ercising 3urisdiction o4er the sa'e co'plaint.
ssu!s: ($) whether co'plainants 4iolated the rule against foru' shopping when they filed in
the O'buds'an and the sangguniang bayan identical co'plaints against Rodrigue=O and (!)
whether it was the sangguniang bayan or the O'buds'an that first ac5uired 3urisdiction.
Rul"n#: The pri'ary 3urisdiction of the O'buds'an to in4estigate any act or o'ission of a
public officer or e'ployee applies only in cases cogni=able by the ;andiganbayan. 2n cases
cogni=able by regular courts, the O'buds'an has concurrent 3urisdiction with other
in4estigati4e agencies of go4ern'ent.
Republic Act 6o. &!.%, otherwise 1nown as An Act #urther 7efining the Jurisdiction of the
;andiganbayan, li'its the cases that are cogni=able by the ;andiganbayan to public officials
occupying positions corresponding to salary grade !" and higher. The ;andiganbayan has no
3urisdiction o4er pri4ate respondent who, as punong barangay, is occupying a position
corresponding to salary grade $. under Republic Act 6o. ,"-&, otherwise 1nown as the
Co'pensation and +osition Classification Act of $%&%
Dhen herein co'plainants first filed the co'plaint in the O'buds'an, 3urisdiction was already
4ested on the latter. Jurisdiction could no longer be transferred to the sangguniang bayan by
4irtue of a subse5uent co'plaint filed by the sa'e co'plainants.
0nder ;ection ,/ of the Local >o4ern'ent Code, the sangguniang bayan has no power to
re'o4e an electi4e barangay official. Apart fro' the O'buds'an, only a proper court 'ay do
so. 0nli1e the sangguniang bayan, the powers of the O'buds'an are not 'erely
reco''endatory. The O'buds'an is clothed with authority to directly re'o4e an erring public
official other than 'e'bers of Congress and the Judiciary who 'ay be re'o4ed only by
i'peach'ent.