Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49837:gr-168079-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:57:36+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 168079 - Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, et al.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and MA. MELLY JAUD MAGBANUA, Respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari 1 assailing the 9 May 2005 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (Cebu City) in CA-G.R. SP No. 73085. The Court of Appeals set aside the 3 May 2000 Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas (Ombudsman Visayas) and the 6 June 2000 Memorandum and the 28 May 2002 Order3 of the Office of the Ombudsman Manila (petitioner) in OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0466 insofar as it imposed upon Ma. Melly Jaud Magbanua (respondent) the penalty of dismissal from the service.
Respondent was the Local Treasury Operations Assistant of the City Treasurer's Office in Bacolod City. On 27 February 1998, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an examination of respondent's cash and account. The examination disclosed a shortage of P265,450. Upon demand, respondent failed to produce the missing amount.
Baja was impleaded in the case before the Ombudsman Visayas. Baja denied that respondent designated her as Paymaster. She also denied that she received the payroll funds. Baja alleged that her assigned task was only to take charge of the listing of payrolls and vouchers to be included in the respective cash advances of the disbursing officers.
Respondent and Baja failed to appear during the preliminary conference conducted on 26 July 1999. Despite their non-appearance, they were given time to submit their respective Memoranda or Position Papers before the case was considered submitted for decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and upon finding that respondent MA. MELLY JAUD MAGBANUA GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and for VIOLATIONS OF REASONABLE OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS and respondent MONINA BAJA GUILTY OF DISHONESTY, they are both meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from service pursuant to the provisions of Section 22(b) and (a), respectively, of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. The penalty prescribed under Section 22(c), a lesser offense, is deemed absorbed in a much graver offense.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. In an Order dated 28 May 2002,7 petitioner denied the motion.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not commit any reversible error in finding respondent guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. The Court of Appeals ruled that respondent was an accountable officer. On the other hand, Baja was not officially designated as Disbursing Officer or Paymaster but was merely assigned to "take charge of the listing of payrolls and vouchers to be included in the respective cash advances of disbursing officers." The Court of Appeals sustained petitioner in finding that respondent was grossly remiss in her obligations as an accountable officer when she allowed Baja to release payroll funds which formed part of her own cash advance. In addition, respondent allowed Baja to prepare the necessary disbursement and liquidation reports which respondent should have prepared herself. The Court of Appeals ruled that respondent did not even review or examine the reports prepared by Baja.
However, the Court of Appeals ruled that while petitioner's findings were correct, petitioner has no power to impose directly sanctions against government officials and employees who are subject of its investigation. Citing Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman,8 the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner's power is limited and it may only recommend, not impose, the appropriate sanctions.
Petitioner challenges before this Court the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The sole issue in this case is whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to impose directly administrative penalties on public officials or employees.
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 of this Act: Provided, That the refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.
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.
SEC. 25. Penalties. â€• (1) In administrative proceedings under Presidential Decree No. 807, the penalties and rules provided therein shall be applied.
It has long been settled that 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 RA 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer x x x.
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.
In the present case, the Court similarly upholds the Office of 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. The exercise of such power is well founded in the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770.
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.
Section 21 of RA 6770 vests in the Ombudsman "disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government," except impeachable officers, members of Congress, and the Judiciary. And under Section 25 of RA 6770, the Ombudsman may impose in administrative proceedings the "penalty ranging from suspension without pay for one year to dismissal with forfeiture of benefits or a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to twice the amount malversed, illegally taken or lost, or both at the discretion of the Ombudsman x x x."
Clearly, under RA 6770 the Ombudsman has the power to impose directly administrative penalty on public officials or employees. Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner has no power to impose directly administrative penalties on public officials or employees.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 9 May 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73085 insofar as it declares that the Office of the Ombudsman has no authority to directly impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon respondent Ma. Melly Jaud Magbanua. We REINSTATE the 6 June 2000 Memorandum of the Office of the Ombudsman Manila which affirmed with modification the 3 May 2000 Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas, as well as the Order dated 28 May 2002 which denied respondent's motion for reconsideration.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dican with Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Enrico A. Lanzanas, concurring.
3 Erroneously stated as 8 July 2002 Order in the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision.
5 Approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervasio, Jr. on 7 June 2000.
7 Approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto on 14 June 2002.
8 429 Phil. 47 (2002).
10 G.R. No. 161629, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 437.
11 Id. at 450, 452-453.
12 G.R. No. 160675, 16 June 2006, 491 SCRA 92.
13 See Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167844, 22 November 2006, 507 SCRA 593.
14 Id. at 108, 116, 119.
15 G.R. No. 159314, 26 June 2006, 492 SCRA 652.
16 G.R. No. 155088, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 561.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.