Office of The Ombudsman V Samaniego 2008

OFFICE OF THE
SAMANIEGO 2008
OMBUDSMAN
v.
FACTS:
Respondent Joel S. Samaniego was the
City Treasurer of Ligao City, Albay. On
separate dates, the Commission on Audit
(COA) through its Regional Cluster Director
Atty. Francisco R. Velasco1[3] filed two
accountabilities in OMB-L-A-03-1060-K. He
was meted the penalty of one year
suspension from office. Via a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 43 with a
motion for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction in the CA
His prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction was granted.
administrative
complaints
against
Samaniego, docketed as OMB-L-A-031060-K2[4] and OMB-L-A-03-1061-K,3[5] for
dishonesty and grave misconduct.
the Office of the Ombudsman filed a

motion for intervention and to admit the
attached motion to recall the writ of
preliminary injunction. The motions were
denied.
In these administrative complaints, the

COA alleged that respondent incurred
shortages in his accountabilities for two
separate periods.4[6] Respondent received
letters of demand requiring him to explain
his side and settle his accountabilities.
The Office of the Ombudsman now claims

that the CA erred in denying its right to
intervene, considering that its joint
decision was the subject of the appeal. It
also asserts that the writ of preliminary
injunction should be recalled.
In his counter-affidavit, respondent

averred, among others, that OMB-L-A-031060-K was bereft of factual basis. He
likewise averred that the alleged amount
of his accountability in OMB-L-A-03-1061-K
was the same amount cited in OMB-L-A03-1060-K. He also pleaded the defense of
restitution of his alleged accountabilities.
We rule for the Office of the Ombudsman.
In a joint decision dated April 11, 2005,

the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon found respondent liable for grave
misconduct5[7] because he failed to
explain
his
side
and
settle
his
1
2
3
4
5
ISSUE: WON CA erred in denying its (Office

of the Ombudsman) right to intervene
HELD:
The CA denied petitioners motion
for intervention for lack of basis, reasoning
that:
In
the
instant
case,
the
Ombudsmans intervention is not proper
considering that, other than its objection
to the issuance of the injunctive writ, no
legal interest in the matter subject of
litigation has been alleged by the
Ombudsman
in
the
motion
for
intervention. xxx
We disagree.
The Office of the Ombudsman
sufficiently alleged its legal interest in the
subject matter of litigation. Paragraph 2 of
its motion for intervention and to admit
the attached motion to recall writ of
preliminary injunction averred:
2. As a competent disciplining body, the

Ombudsman has the right to seek redress
on the apparently erroneous issuance by
this Honorable Court of the Writ of
Preliminary
Injunction
enjoining
the
implementation of the Ombudsmans Joint
Decision imposing upon petitioner the
penalty of suspension for one (1) year,
consistent with the doctrine laid down by
the Supreme Court in PNB [vs]. Garcia,
xxx and CSC [vs]. Dacoycoy, xxx;
(citations omitted; emphasis in the
original)
In asserting that it was a competent
disciplining body, the Office of the
Ombudsman correctly summed up its legal
interest in the matter in controversy. In
support of its claim, it invoked its role as a
constitutionally mandated protector of
the people, a disciplinary authority
vested with quasi-judicial function to
resolve administrative disciplinary cases
against public officials.6[32] To hold
otherwise would have been tantamount to
abdicating its salutary functions as the
guardian of public trust and accountability.
MANDATE OF THE OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Section 27, Article II of the Constitution
reads:
The State shall maintain honesty
and integrity in the public service and take
positive and effective measures against
graft and corruption.
To implement this, the Constitution
established the Office of the Ombudsman,
composed of the Ombudsman, one overall
deputy and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.7[10] It was
the intention of the Constitution to make
the Ombudsman independent.
6
7
The purpose of the Office of the

Ombudsman is enunciated in Section 12,
Article XI of the Constitution:
The Ombudsman and his Deputies,
as protectors of the people, shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form
or manner against public officials or
employees of the government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants
of the action taken and the result thereof.
RA 6770 states the mandate of the
Ombudsman:
SEC. 13. Mandate. The Ombudsman and
his deputies, as protectors of the people,
shall act promptly on complaints filed in
any form or manner against officers or
employees of the Government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and enforce their
administrative, civil and criminal liability in
every case where the evidence warrants in
order to promote efficient service by the
Government to the people.
[The Office of the Ombudsman] is vested
with
full
administrative
disciplinary
authority
including
the
power
to
determine
the
appropriate
penalty
imposable on erring public officers or
employees as warranted by the evidence,
and necessarily, impose the said penalty.
Thus, the provisions in [RA] 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
penalty.xxx (emphasis supplied)
said
Full disciplinary authority is one of the

broad powers granted to it by the
Constitution and RA 6770. These broad
powers, functions and duties are generally
categorized into: investigatory power,
prosecutory power, public assistance
functions, authority to inquire and obtain
information, and the function to adopt,
institute
and
implement
preventive
measures.8[17]
and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss

investigations directed against them.12[21]
Its function is critical because public
interest (in the accountability of public
officers and employees) is at stake.
Actions of the Ombudsman that do

not fall squarely under any of these
general headings are not to be construed
outright as illegal. The avowed purpose of
preserving public trust and accountability
must be considered. So long as the
Ombudsmans actions are reasonably in
line with its official functions and are not
contrary to law and the Constitution, they
should be upheld. Defending its decisions
in the CA is one such power.
The Ombudsman is expected to be
an activist watchman, not merely a
passive onlooker.9[18] A statute granting
powers to an agency created by the
Constitution such as RA 6770 should
be liberally construed to advance the
objectives for which it was created. 10[19]
In Buenaseda v. Flavier,11[20] we held that
any interpretation of RA 6770 that
hampers the work of the Ombudsman
should be avoided.
Taking all this into consideration,
the Ombudsman is in a league of its own.
It is different from other investigatory and
prosecutory agencies of the government
because the people under its jurisdiction
are public officials who, through pressure
8
9
10
11
12

Office of The Ombudsman V Samaniego 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Office of The Ombudsman V Samaniego 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Office of The Ombudsman V Samaniego 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OFFICE OF THE

the Office of the Ombudsman filed a

In these administrative complaints, the

The Office of the Ombudsman now claims

In his counter-affidavit, respondent

We rule for the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a joint decision dated April 11, 2005,

ISSUE: WON CA erred in denying its (Office

2. As a competent disciplining body, the

The purpose of the Office of the

Full disciplinary authority is one of the

and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss

Actions of the Ombudsman that do

You might also like