Latest Posts
Ombudsman vs. CSC
OMBUDSMAN
VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007
Facts:
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo wrote a letter dated July 28,
2003 to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), requesting the approval of the
amendment of qualification standards for Director II positions in the Central
Administrative Service and Finance and Management Service of the Office of the
Ombudsman. The CSC issued Opinion No.
44, s. 2004 disapproving the request on the ground that Director II position,
being third level eligibility, is covered by the Career Executive Service. The
Office of the Ombudsman, thus, filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set
aside and nullify CSC Opinion No. 44, s. 2004.
The Office of the Ombudsman asserts that its specific,
exclusive and discretionary constitutional and statutory power as an
independent constitutional body to administer and supervise its own officials
and personnel, including the authority to administer competitive examinations
and prescribe reasonable qualification standards for its own officials, cannot
be curtailed by the general power of the CSC to administer the civil service
system. Any unwarranted and unreasonable restriction on its discretionary
authority, such as what the CSC did when it issued Opinion No. 44, s. 2004, is
constitutionally and legally infirm.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the Director II positions in the
Central Administrative Service and the Finance and Management Service of the
Office of the Ombudsman are covered by the CES
Held:
1. No. Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7
of EO 292, otherwise known as “The Administrative Code of 1987,” provides:
SECTION
7. Career Service. – The Career Service
shall be characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined
as far as practicable by competitive examination, or based on highly technical
qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and
(3) security of tenure.
The
Career Service shall include:
(1)
Open Career positions for appointment
to which prior qualification in an appropriate examination is required;
(2) Closed
Career positions which are scientific, or highly technical in nature; these
include the faculty and academic staff of state colleges and universities, and
scientific and technical positions in scientific or research institutions which
shall establish and maintain their own merit systems;
(3) Positions
in the Career Executive Service; namely, Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director,
Assistant Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and other officers of
equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the President;
x x x
x x x x x x (emphasis supplied)
Thus, the CES covers presidential
appointees only.
2. Under the
Constitution, the Ombudsman is the appointing authority for all officials and
employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except the Deputy Ombudsmen.
Thus, a person occupying the position of Director II in the Central
Administrative Service or Finance and Management Service of the Office of the
Ombudsman is appointed by the Ombudsman, not by the President. As such, he is
neither embraced in the CES nor does he need to possess CES eligibility.
To classify the positions of Director II in the Central
Administrative Service and the Finance and Management Service of the Office of
the Ombudsman as covered by the CES and require appointees thereto to acquire
CES or CSE eligibility before acquiring security of tenure will lead to
unconstitutional and unlawful consequences. It will result either in (1)
vesting the appointing power for said position in the President, in violation
of the Constitution or (2) including in the CES a position not held by a
presidential appointee, contrary to the Administrative Code.
Section 6, Article XI of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the
Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman
according to the Civil Service Law.
This is complemented by Sec. 11 of RA 6770, otherwise
known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989.”
Under
the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body. As
a guaranty of this independence, the Ombudsman has the power to appoint all
officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except his deputies.This
power necessarily includes the power of setting, prescribing and administering
the standards for the officials and personnel of the Office.
To
further ensure its independence, the Ombudsman has been vested with the power
of administrative control and supervision of the Office. This includes the
authority to organize such directorates for administration and allied services
as may be necessary for the effective discharge of the functions of the Office,
as well as to prescribe and approve its position structure and staffing
pattern. Necessarily, it also includes the authority to determine and establish
the qualifications, duties, functions and responsibilities of the various
directorates and allied services of the Office. This must be so if the constitutional
intent to establish an independent Office of the Ombudsman is to remain
meaningful and significant.
Qualification standards are used as guides in appointment
and other personnel actions, in determining training needs and as aid in the
inspection and audit of the personnel work programs. They are intimately
connected to the power to appoint as well as to the power of administrative
supervision. Thus, as a corollary to the Ombudsman’s appointing and supervisory
powers, he possesses the authority to establish reasonable qualification
standards for the personnel of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Since the responsibility for the establishment,
administration and maintenance of qualification standards lies with the
concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limited to assisting
the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards and
approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of
the department or agency, specially in a case like this in which an
independent constitutional body is involved.
Petition GRANTED and Opinion No. 44, s. 2004 SET ASIDE.
Orcullo vs Gervacio
ORCULLO
VS. GERVACIO
G.R. No. 134104. September 14, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Nenita R. Orcullo was elected City Councilor
of the Second District of Davao City in 1995.
She was chair of the Committee of Women Welfare and Development of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod.
In September, 1995, the City Government of Davao City,
represented by the Vice-Mayor, named respondent Virginia Yap Morales as team
leader of a study group in the conduct of the Action Study Towards Policy
Formulation on the Welfare and Development of Women, in aid of legislation.
In 1996, due to financial constraints, Orcullo caused the
suspension of the project. In 1997, Morales wrote the Office of the Ombudsman
for Mindanao "requesting for assistance" to collect back wages.
On March 20, 1997, petitioner having been furnished a
copy of the above letter, replied
thereto. She said that respondent
Virginia Yap Morales was among women activists who volunteered to work for the
codification of the Women Code, and she was endorsed to head the study
team. Acting thereon, on September 15,
1995, the Vice Mayor of Davao City, appointed respondent team leader of a study
group for an action study towards policy formulation on women's welfare and development,
in aid of proposed legislation. As there
was no budget for the project, petitioner recommended her appointment as
technical assistant in the City Council of Davao City. On October 24, 1995, respondent accepted the
appointment and signed a contract of service with the City of Davao, represented
by the Vice-Mayor, enforceable for the period October 1, 1995 to December 31,
1995, and upon expiration thereof, she was named as clerk II in the office of
petitioner. She received all salaries
due her even during the time the work was suspended for three months, until the
suspension of the project due to financial constraints.
In 1998, respondent Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy
Ombudsman for Mindanao issued an order directing Orcullo to pay respondent
Morales back wages.
Orcullo filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground
that the award of back wages was improper as there was no employer-employee
relationship between her and respondent Morales, and that the office of the
Ombudsman was without authority to issue such an order. Gervacio denied the
motion for reconsideration.
On April 15, 1998, graft investigator Marilou B. Unabia
issued a memorandum terminating the request for assistance of Morales and recommending
that a case for violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019 be filed against Orcullo
before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao. Gervacio, Jr. approved
the recommendation. Hence, Orcullo filed special civil action for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in ordering petitioner personally to pay back wages
to respondent Morales, who was named as team leader of a study group for a
project of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City, in aid of legislation.
Held:
No. The Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao has no authority or
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. As a money claim against
petitioner personally, the claim is within the jurisdiction of a court of
proper jurisdiction (depending on the amount of the claim). If the money claim is against the City
government of Davao City, the claim is within the jurisdiction of the City
Council (Sangguniang Panlungsod), or other proper government agency, but not
the office of the Ombudsman.
The respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao cannot
invoked Section 15 (5) of R.A. No. 6770, which provides:
“SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. – The Office of
the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
“x x x
“(5) Request any government agency for assistance and
information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine,
if necessary, pertinent records and documents;”
The above quoted provision does not vest the Ombudsman
with authority to order a public official to pay a money claim of an aggrieved
party. The provision authorizes the Office of the Ombudsman to request
any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge
of its responsibilities. It does not authorize the Ombudsman to directly order
the payment of claims for wages, salaries or compensations of aggrieved parties.
What is more, respondent Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
abused the functions of his office by approving a recommendation of a graft
investigator to file with his own office an anti-graft case against petitioner
for violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019, who was just exercising the
duties of her office as an elected local legislator of the City of Davao. Petitioner could not be personally liable
for the payment of the wages, salary or
honorarium of a "team leader" assisting her as local
legislator of Davao City in crafting a piece of legislation on women's
code. She was not even the one who
hired respondent to undertake the project.
Petitioner's refusal to pay was not in bad faith, much less evident bad
faith. Hence, she could not be liable
for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
"Any further prosecution then of petitioner was pure
harassment."
Consequently, the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in
issuing the questioned orders. Although
petitioner could have elevated the ruling of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
to the Ombudsman in Manila, the threat of prosecution of petitioner
before the Deputy Ombudsman’s own office created an immediate urgency for
judicial relief.
Petition granted. Orders of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Mindanao annulled. Graft Investigation Officer Unabia enjoined to desist from
further acting on the case.
Calingin vs Desierto
CALINGIN
VS. DESIERTO
G.R. Nos. 145743-89, August 10, 2007, 529
SCRA 720
Facts:
Petitioner Antonio P. Calingin is a former mayor of
Claveria, Misamis Oriental. During his incumbency, the municipality undertook a
low-cost housing project. The Commission on Audit (COA) of Region X, Cagayan de
Oro City conducted a special audit of the housing project for calendar years
1995 and 1996. The members of the COA Special Audit Team executed a Joint
Affidavit embodying their findings for the purpose of filing criminal charges
against Calingin and other public officials. They then submitted their Audit
Report and Joint Affidavit to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao.
In a Resolution dated December 2, 1998, Graft
Investigation Officer Jocelyn R. Araune of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for Mindanao recommended the filing of criminal charges against the petitioner
and co-accused for violation of Section 3(e) and 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019,
otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, and for violation of
Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon review, however, Special
Prosecution Officer Alberto B. Sipaco, Jr., Office of the Ombudsman for
Mindanao recommended that the said Resolution be disapproved and the charges be
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. On August 13, 1999, then Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto, respondent, disapproved the Memorandum of Sipaco and
approved the Resolution of Araune.
Consequently, 47 Informations for violation of Section 3
(e) and (h) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code were
filed with the Sandiganbayan against Calingin and his co-accused.
Calingin filed a motion for reinvestigation which was
granted by the Sandiganbayan. It then ordered the Office of the Special
Prosecutor to reinvestigate the cases.
In a Resolution dated July 20, 2000, Special Prosecutor
Norberto B. Ruiz recommended the dismissal of all the cases against all the
accused for lack of probable cause. In a
Memorandum dated August 10, 2000, the Chief of the Office of Legal Affairs,
Office of the Ombudsman, reversed the Ruiz Resolution and recommended that Calingin
and his co-accused be prosecuted. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation.
Hence, Calingin filed a petition for certiorari,
contending that the Office of Legal Affairs which recommended his prosecution
has no authority to review the findings and recommendation of the Office of the
Special Prosecutor since the latter is not subject to the control and
supervision of the Ombudsman.
Issue:
Whether respondent Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disapproving the
recommendation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to dismiss all the
charges against herein petitioner and his co-accused. Is the Special Prosecutor co-equal to the Ombudsman or to
his deputies?
Held:
No. The Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the
Special Prosecutor are creatures of the 1987 Constitution as provided by
Sections 5, 7 and 13 of Article XI.
In Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that under
the Constitution, the Special Prosecutor is a mere subordinate of the Ombudsman
and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or
orders.
R.A. No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
provides that the Special Prosecutor has the power and authority, under the
supervision and control of the Ombudsman, to conduct preliminary investigation
and prosecute criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and perform such other
duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman.
Verily, the Office of the Special Prosecutor is but a
mere subordinate of the Ombudsman and is subject to his supervision and control.
In Perez v. Sandiganbayan, this Court held that control means “the power of an officer to alter or modify or
nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of
his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter.” Clearly, in disapproving the recommendation of the Office of the
Special Prosecutor to dismiss all the charges against petitioner and his
co-accused, respondent Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
Zaldivar vs Sandiganbayan
ZALDIVAR
VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 79690-707, April 27, 1988
Facts:
Petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar, governor of the province
of Antique, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under
Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, seeking to restrain the Sandiganbayan and
Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez from proceeding with the prosecution and hearing of
criminal cases against him on the ground that said cases were filed by said
Tanodbayan without legal and constitutional authority, since under the 1987
Constitution which took effect on February 2, 1987, it is only the Ombudsman
(not the present or incumbent Tanodbayan) who has the authority to file cases
with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner also prayed that Tanodbayan Gonzalez be
restrained from conducting preliminary investigations with the Sandiganbayan.
Issue:
Does the Tanodbayan (Special Prosecuter) have the
authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of
criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan?
Held:
No. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman (as
distinguished from the incumbent Tanodbayan) is charged with the duty to:
Investigate on its own,
or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or commission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient (Sec. 13, par. 1)
The Constitution likewise provides that:
The existing Tanodbayan
shall hereafter be known as the office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall
continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be
provided by law, contempt except those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman
created under this Constitution. (Art. XI, Section 7).
Now then, inasmuch as the aforementioned duty is given to
the Ombudsman, the incumbent Tanodbayan (caged Special Prosecutor under the
1987 constitution and who is supposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to
the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary
investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan,
except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to do so was lost effective
February 2, 1987. From that time, he has been divested of such authority.
Under the present Constitution, the Special Prosecutor
(Raul Gonzalez) is a mere subordinate of the Tanodbayan Ombudsman) and can
investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter's authority or orders.
The Special Prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases but can only
conduct the same if instructed to do so by the Ombudsman. Even his original
power to issue subpoena, which he still claims under Section 10(d) of PD
1630, is now deemed transferred to the Ombudsman, who may, however,
retain it in the Spedal Prosecutor in connection with the cases he is ordered
to investigate.
It is not correct either to suppose that the Special
Prosecutor remains the Ombudsman as long as he has not been replaced, for the
fact is that he has never been the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is a
new creation under Article XI of the Constitution different from the Office of
the Tanodbayan created under PD 1607 although concededly some of the powers of
the two offices are Identical or similar. The Special Prosecutor cannot plead
that he has a right to hold over the position of Ombudsman as he has never held
it in the first place.
WHEREFORE, We hereby:
(1) GRANT the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner
Zaldivar and hereby NULLIFY the criminal informations filed against him in the
Sandiganbayan; and
(2) ORDER respondent Raul Gonzalez to cease and desist
from conducting investigations and filing criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan
or otherwise exercising the powers and function of the Ombudsman.
Orap vs. Sandiganbayan
ORAP
VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. L-50508-11, October 11, 1985
Facts:
Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo B. Aquino filed
four informations before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Vicente S. Orap
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan, with
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The gravamen of all these charges was to
the effect that the accused on different occasions unlawfully and feloniously
received and took various sums of money from several persons in connection with
a criminal case pending before his sala.
Before his arraignment, petitioner filed a motion to
quash the informations on the ground that the officer who signed the same had no
authority to do so and that, corollarily, the Sandiganbayan did not acquire
jurisdiction over the offenses charged. The respondent court denied the motion
to quash. Petitioner verbally moved for the reconsideration of the order but
the relief sought was denied.
Hence, petitoner filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the SC. It is the petitioner's position that the Tanodbayan
has no power to conduct preliminary investigations, file informations and
prosecute criminal cases against judges and their appurtenant judicial staff. He
contended that under the Section 9(a) of the Tanodbayan Decree, the courts,
judges and other appurtenant judicial staff, among others, are beyond the reach
of the Tanodbayan, and that only administrative acts of agencies of the
government, whether or not criminal in character, are within the powers of said
official.
Issue:
Has the Tanodbayan the authority to conduct a preliminary
investigation of a complaint charging a municipal judge and his clerk of court
with violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 and, upon a finding of
prima facie case, proceed to file the corresponding information before the
Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same?
Held:
Yes. Petitioner’s argument overlooks the fact that under
the decree, the Tanodbayan functions not only as an ombudsman, but as
prosecutor as well.
As
ombudsman, his investigatory powers are limited
to complaints initiated against officers and personnel of administrative
agencies, as defined in Section 9(a) of the law. To
that extent, we agree with the petitioner's interpretation of the law that
insofar as administrative complaints are concerned, the courts, judges and
their appurtenant judicial staff are outside the Tanodbayan's investigatory
power. The reason for such exclusion is quite evident: under Section 6, Article
10 of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that exercises administrative supervision
over all courts and their personnel and, therefore, is the proper forum to which
administrative complaints involving judges and the court's personnel should be
lodged.
As
prosecutor, however, the authority of
the Tanodbayan is primary and without exceptions.
His powers are defined in Sections 17 and 19 of P.D. 1607, as follows:
SEC. 17. Office of the
Chief Special Prosecutor.—There is hereby created in the Office of the
Tanodbayan an Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor composed of a Chief
Special Prosecutor, an Assistant Chief Special Prosecutor, and nine (9) Special
Prosecutors, who shall have the same qualifications as provincial and city
fiscals and who shall be appointed by the President; ...
The Chief Special Prosecutor, the Assistant Chief Special
Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutors shall have the exclusive authority to
conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable, by the
Sandiganbayan: to file informations therefor and to direct and control the
prosecution of said cases therein Provided, however that the Tanodbayan may
upon recommendation of the Chief Special Prosecutor, designate any fiscal,
state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as Special
Prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of all cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan who shall not receive any additional
compensation except such allowances, per diems and travelling expenses as the
Tanodbayan may determine in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations.
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 19. Prosecution of
Public Personnel or Other Person.—If the Tanodbayan has reason to believe that
any public official employee, or other person has acted in a manner warranting
criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he shall cause him to be
investigated by the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor who shall file and
prosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case before the
Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the proper administrative agency.
In case of failure of justice, the Tanodbayan shall make the appropriate
recommendations to the administrative agency concerned.
Section 17 of the Decree, in unequivocal term, confers
upon the Tanodbayan, through the Chief Special Prosecutor and the
Special Prosecutors, the exclusive authority to "conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, to file
informations therefor, and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases
therein." If, as petitioner contends, judges, and other court
personnel lie outside the investigatory power of the Tanodbayan, then no judge
or court employee could ever be brought to justice for crimes and offenses
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, for lack of proper officer or entity
authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation on complaints of such
nature against them. This absurd situation the law could never have intended,
considering that the Office of the Tanodbayan was purposely created to "give
effect to the constitutional right of the people to petition the government for
redress of grievances and to promote higher standards of integrity and
efficiency in the government service."
Petition dismissed.
Khan vs Ombudsman
KHAN VS. OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 125296, July 20, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners Ismael G. Khan, Jr. and Wenceslao
L. Malabanan, former officers of Philippine Airlines (PAL), were charged before
the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) with violation of RA 3019 (the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) for using their positions in PAL to secure a contract
for Synergy Services Corporation, a corporation engaged in hauling and
janitorial services in which they were shareholders.
Petitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
the complaint on the following grounds: (1) the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction
over them since PAL was a private entity and (2) they were not public officers,
hence, outside the application of RA 3019.
The Deputy Ombudsman denied petitioners'
omnibus motion to dismiss, ruling that although PAL was originally organized as
a private corporation, its controlling stock was later acquired by the
government through the GSIS. Therefore, it became a government-owned or
controlled corporation (GOCC) as enunciated in Quimpo v. Tanodbayan. The Deputy
Ombudsman also held that petitioners were public officers within the definition
of RA 3019, Section 2 (b). Under that provision, public officers included
"elective, appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the Government."
Petitioners appealed the order to the
Ombudsman which affirmed the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman.
Petitioners, thus, filed a petition for
certiorari before the Supreme Court. Petitioners argue that: (1) the
Ombudsman's jurisdiction only covers GOCCs with original charters and these do
not include PAL, a private entity created under the general corporation law;
(2) Quimpo does not apply to the case at bar and (3) RA 3019 only concerns
"public officers," thus, they cannot be investigated or prosecuted
under that law.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Ombudsman has
jurisdiction over GOCC without original charter
2. Whether or not the Quimpo case apply to
the case at bar
3. Whether or not petitioners PAL officers are
public officers
HELD:
1.
Jurisdiction of the ombudsman over GOCCS is confined only to those with
original charters
Article XI, Section 13(2) of the 1987
Constitution provides:
Sec. 13.
The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and
duties:
xxx xxx
xxx
(2)
Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee
of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as
well as any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty
required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in
the performance of duties. (italics supplied)
xxx xxx
xxx
Based on the foregoing provision, the Office
of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public officials/ employees of
GOCCs with original charters. This being so, it can only investigate and
prosecute acts or omissions of the officials/employees of government
corporations. Therefore, although the government later on acquired the
controlling interest in PAL, the fact remains that the latter did not have an
"original charter" and its officers/employees could not be
investigated and/or prosecuted by the Ombudsman.
In Juco v. National Labor Relations
Commission, we ruled that the phrase "with original charter" means
"chartered by special law as distinguished from corporations organized
under the Corporation Code." PAL, being originally a private
corporation seeded by private capital and created under the general corporation
law, does not fall within the jurisdictional powers of the Ombudsman under
Article XI, Section 13(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the latter is
devoid of authority to investigate or prosecute petitioners.
2. Quimpo
Not Applicable to the Case at Bar
Quimpo is not applicable to the case at bar.
In that case, Felicito Quimpo charged in 1984 two officers of PETROPHIL in the
Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman) for violation of RA 3019. These officers sought the
dismissal of the case on the ground that the Tanodbayan had no jurisdiction
over them as officers/employees of a private company. The Court declared that
the Tanodbayan had jurisdiction over them because PETROPHIL ceased to be a
private entity when Philippine National Oil Corporation (PNOC) acquired its
shares.
In hindsight, although Quimpo appears, on
first impression, relevant to this case (like PETROPHIL, PAL's shares were also
acquired by the government), closer scrutiny reveals that it is not actually on
all fours with the facts here.
In Quimpo, the government acquired PETROPHIL
to "perform functions related to government programs and policies on
oil." The fact that the purpose in acquiring PETROPHIL was for it to
undertake governmental functions related to oil was decisive in sustaining the
Tanodbayan's jurisdiction over it. This was certainly not the case with
PAL. The records indicate that the government acquired the controlling interest
in the airline as a result of the conversion into equity of its unpaid loans
in GSIS. No governmental functions at all were involved.
Furthermore, Quimpo was decided prior to
the 1987 Constitution. In fact, it was the 1973 Constitution which the Court
relied on in concluding that the Tanodbayan had jurisdiction over PETROPHIL's
accused officers, particularly Article XIII, Section 6. The term
"government-owned or controlled corporations" in the 1973
Constitution was qualified by the 1987 Constitution to refer only to those with
original charters.
3. Petitioners,
as then Officers of PAL, were not Public Officers
Neither the 1987 Constitution nor RA 6670
(The Ombudsman Act of 1989) defines who "public officers" are.
Instead, its varied definitions and concepts are found in different statutes
and jurisprudence. Usually quoted in our decisions is Mechem, a recognized
authority on the subject. In the 2002 case of Laurel v. Desierto,15 the Court
extensively quoted his exposition on the term "public officers":
A public office is the right, authority and
duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed
by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a
public officer.
The characteristics of a public office,
according to Mechem, include the delegation of sovereign functions, its
creation by law and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the
position, scope of duties, and the designation of the position as an office.
xxx
xxx xxx
Mechem describes the delegation to the
individual of the sovereign functions of government as "[t]he most
important characteristic" in determining whether a position is a public
office or not.
The most important characteristic which
distinguishes an office from an employment or contract is that the creation and
conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of
the sovereign functions of government to be exercised by him for the benefit of
the public; − that some portion of the sovereignty of the country, either
legislative, executive, or judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be
exercised for the public benefit. Unless the powers conferred are of this
nature, the individual is not a public officer.
From the foregoing, it can be reasonably
inferred that "public officers" are those endowed with the
exercise of sovereign executive, legislative or judicial functions. The
explication of the term is also consistent with the Court's pronouncement in
Quimpo that, in the case of officers/employees in GOCCs, they are deemed
"public officers" if their corporations are tasked to carry out
governmental functions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
Public respondents Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) and Office of the Ombudsman are
restrained from proceeding with the investigation or prosecution of the
complaint against petitioners for violation of RA 3019. Accordingly, their
assailed orders of July 13, 1989 and February 22, 1996, respectively, are SET ASIDE
and ANNULLED.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)