OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
Petitioner, -
versus - CELSO Respondent. |
G.R. No. 161098
Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: September 13, 2007 |
x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
assailing the Decision[2] dated
The facts are:
On P44,053.00. This was received by Barangay Chairman Celso
Santiago, respondent herein.
On October 3, 2000, Rebecca B.
Pangilinan, Mario B. Martin, Rolando H. Lopez and Alfredo M. Escaño, Sr., all
barangay kagawad of Barangay 183, filed with
the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner, an administrative complaint for
technical malversation, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a public officer against
respondent, docketed as OMB-ADM-0-00-0828.
The complaint alleges that (a)
respondent failed to utilize the calamity fund for the purpose for which it was
allocated; (b) he leased a portion of the barangay sidewalk to Amity Food
Corporation without the conformity of the barangay kagawad;
(c) Amity Food Corporation issued checks payable to respondent, not in the name
of the Barangay; (d) he did not open any bank account for and in the name of
Barangay 183, Zone 16; and (e) he collected fees for the use of the barangay
chapel without remitting any single centavo to the barangay treasurer.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
the administrative complaint denying all the charges and contending that the
complaint was filed to harass him.
In a Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
the foregoing premises considered, respondent CELSO R. SANTIAGO, Barangay
Chairman of Barangay 183, Zone 16 of the Second District of Manila is hereby
found GUILTY of the administrative offenses of DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT and
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE with the penalty of DISMISSAL
FROM THE SERVICE pursuant to the pertinent provision of Republic Act No. 6770,
otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
The
City Mayor of Manila is hereby directed to immediately implement this DECISION
in accordance with law and to inform this office of its initial action within
fifteen (15) days upon receipt hereof.
SO
ORDERED.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and an urgent motion to hold in abeyance
the implementation of the Decision, but both motions were denied by the Office
of the Ombudsman in an Order dated
Thus, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a “Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandatory Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order.”
Apparently, the Court of Appeals considered this action a petition for
review.
In its Decision[3]
dated
However,
assuming arguendo, that petitioner is administratively liable, public
respondent has no authority to directly dismiss the petitioner from the
government service, more particularly from his elective position of Barangay
Captain. (Renato A. Tapiador vs. Office
of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129124,
x x x
Clearly,
public respondent has the duty to investigate and prosecute only for and in its
behalf, civil, criminal, and administrative offenses committed by government
officers and employees embodied in Sections 15 and 11 of R.A. 6770 (George
Uy vs. the Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al., 354 SCRA 651). It cannot directly
impose any disciplinary measure upon any erring public officer.
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
portions of the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a
motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its
Resolution[4] of
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the obiter dictum in the case of Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman[5]
to the effect that the Ombudsman has no authority to directly dismiss an erring
public official or employee from the government service[6] is
not a controlling doctrine.
For his part, respondent maintains that the petition should be denied for
lack of merit.
The issue for our resolution is whether
the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss erring government officials or employees.
Section 13(3), Article XI of the 1987
Constitution provides:
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(3) Direct the
officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
Invoking Tapiador, respondent contends that the word “recommend”
be given its literal meaning, that is, that the Ombudsman’s action,
pursuant to the above provision, is only recommendatory.
In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,[7]
we held:
Several reasons militate against a literal
interpretation of the subject constitutional provision. Firstly, a
cursory reading of Tapiador reveals that the main point of the case was
the failure of the complainant therein to present substantial evidence to prove
the charges of the administrative case. The statement that made reference to the power of the Ombudsman is, at best, merely an obiter dictum and, as it is
unsupported by sufficient explanation, is susceptible to varying interpretations, as what precisely is before us in this
case. Hence, it cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of this Court
nor is it safe from judicial examination.
In interpreting a statute, care should
be given that every part thereof be given effect.[8] Hence,
the use of the word “recommend” must
be read in conjunction with the words “ensure
compliance therewith” in order not to run counter to the intention of the
framers of the Constitution to give the Ombudsman full and complete
disciplinary authority, with powers that are not merely persuasive in
character. In fact, Section 13(3), Article XI is complemented by Section 15 of
Republic Act No. 6770[9]
which reads:
SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. – The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
...
(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; x x x
Considering that the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to
comply with an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring
officer or employee is a ground for disciplinary action, it follows that the
Ombudsman’s “recommendation” is not merely advisory but is
actually mandatory within the bounds of law.[10]
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).
WHEREFORE,
we GRANT the petition. The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66744 are REVERSED. The Decision dated
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Filed under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid (all retired).
[3] Annex “A” of the petition, rollo, pp. 72-80.
[4] Annex “B” of the petition, id., pp. 82-84.
[5] G.R.
No. 129124,
[6] The full obiter reads: Besides, assuming arguendo, that petitioner was administratively liable, the Ombudsman has no authority to directly dismiss the petitioner from the government service, more particularly from his position in the BID. Under Section 13, subparagraph (3), of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman can only “recommend” the removal of the public official or employee found to be at fault, to the public official concerned.
[7] G.R.
No. 161629,
[8] JMM Promotions & Management, Inc v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 109835,
[9] The Ombudsman Act of 1989.
[10] Supra, footnote 7.
[11] G.R.
No. 159314,