Citing Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman,[25] the CA declared that the Ombudsman’s power in administrative cases is limited 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; accordingly, it has no power to impose the penalty of suspension on Armilla, et al.
The CA adopted the same view in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos where it held that the Ombudsman had no authority to directly penalize therein respondent Lorena Santos, but may only recommend to her agency, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, the imposition of an administrative penalty against her.
In both cases, the Court reversed the CA and declared that the scope of the authority of the Ombudsman in administrative cases as defined under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 is broad enough to include the direct imposition of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine or censure on an erring public official or employee. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Armilla, the Court held:
Still in connection with their administrative disciplinary authority, the Ombudsman and his deputies are expressly given the power to preventively suspend public officials and employees facing administrative charges in accordance with Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770:
Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. – The Ombudsman and his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.
Section 25 thereof sets forth the penalties as follows:
Sec. 25. Penalties. – (1) In administrative proceedings under Presidential Decree No. 807, the penalties and rules provided therein shall be applied.
(2) In other 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, taking into consideration circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the liability of the officer or employee found guilty of the complaint or charges.
As referred to in the above provision, under Presidential Decree No. 807,[32] the penalties that may be imposed by the disciplining authority in administrative disciplinary cases are removal from the service, transfer, demotion in rank, suspension for not more than one year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding six months’ salary, or reprimand.
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 provides for the period of effectivity and finality of the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman:
Sec. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. – (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory.
x x x x
Findings of facts by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month’s salary shall be final and unappealable.
x x x x
All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.
Moreover, in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos, the Court drew attention to subparagraph 3 of Sec. 15 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 x
(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. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court held that the aforecited proviso — that the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or employee with removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution is a ground for disciplinary action against said officer — is a strong indication that the Ombudsman’s “recommendation” is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law.
It being settled that the Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative penalties, it did not act with grave abuse of discretion in the present case when it meted the penalty of suspension on respondent for simple misconduct. The CA therefore erred in granting the petition for certiorari of respondent.
The next issue is whether the imposition of such penalty can no longer be appealed to the CA.
The Court had occasion to resolve the same issue in Herrera v. Bohol.[26] In said case, the Ombudsman found therein petitioner Herrera guilty of simple misconduct and imposed upon him the penalty of suspension for one month without pay. Herrera filed an appeal with the CA, but the same was dismissed on the ground “that the questioned decision of the Ombudsman is unappealable x x x.” Citing Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[27] the Court affirmed the decision of the CA, thus:
x x x [T]he Court, again citing Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770, Sec. 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman and Lapid v. Court of Appeals, reiterated that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary shall be final and unappealable.The penalty imposed upon herein petitioner being suspension for one month without pay, we hold the same final and unappealable, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the CA erred when it reviewed on appeal the factual basis of the Ombudsman decision despite its being final and unappealable under Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770. As we held in Republic v. Francisco,[28] considering that a decision of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of suspension for not more than one month is final and unappealable, “it follows that the CA ha[s] no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse the same.” This is not to say that decisions of the Ombudsman cannot be questioned – such decisions are still subject to the test of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, as earlier discussed, the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in imposing on respondent the penalty of suspension without pay for not more than one month, the same being within its ample authority to impose under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/160596.htm
Batas Pinoy 