LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 13 v. Hinampas

August 7, 2007 Garcia, J. Raeses, Roberto Miguel O.

2.

SUMMARY: These are five consolidated petitions, all assailing the CAs decisions in said petitions overturning the Ombudsmans actions. The decisions of the CA in the consolidated was premised on the socalled Tapiador doctrine, an obiter which declared that the Ombudsmans powers are recommendatory, and thus had no power to dismiss a public official. In ruling upon this issue, the SC herein declared that, as the so-called Tapiador doctrine is a mere obiter, it cannot be cited as doctrine [Ledesma v. CA]. Furthermore, it was the intent of the lawmakers to give the Ombudsman the power to remove from government service erring public officials, with the exception of members of Congress and the Judiciary [Estarija v. Ranada]. The SC, in view of this disquisition, reversed the decisions of the CA that merely relied on the Tapiador doctrine, and reinstated the Ombudsmans decisions. The one case where the CAs decision was affirmed was based on the lack of substantial evidence. DOCTRINE: The powers of the Ombudsman is not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional bust also effective. The Ombudsman has, therefore, the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary [Estarija v. Ranada]. FACTS: These are five consolidated petitions assailing the CAs decisions in said petitions overturning the Ombudsmans actions: 1. Such was premised on the idea that Ombudsmans administrative disciplinary power is merely recommendatory. G.R. No. 158672 [The Bidding Case] 1. Teodoro Gapuzan filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman [OOMB] alleging:

3.

4. 5.

Anomalies in the conduct of pubic biddings by the Office of the District Engineer, 1st Engineering district of Agusan Del Sur; and b. Collusion of licensed private contractor Engr. Candol, representing JTC Devt, Construction and Supply and NBS Construction under a JVA. Despite the abovementioned firms being holders of small licenses (they are entitled to projects costing not more than P3M), Engr. Candol was awarded with seven projects of more than P3M each. a. OOMB endorsed the letter-complaint to COA, Region XII, CAR, Butuan City for an audit investigation. Resulting audit recommended the filing of: i. Criminal charges against Engr. Candol and members of the Agusan Del Sur 1st Engineering District Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) ii. Administrative charges against same PBAC members for negligence and failure to properly validate the veracity/authenticity of the documents submitted during the bidding. The Ombudsman found sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of: a. Criminal charges against Engr. Candol, the PBAC members and Gloria Razo, the Chairman of the PBAC Technical Staff; and b. Administrative charges against the PBAC members and Razo for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Ombudsman eventually found them guilty of the charges and meted out the penalty of suspension for one year without pay. The CA reversed the Ombudsman with respect to Candol and the PBAC members. a. The OOMB cannot implement decisions in administrative cases pursuant to the obiter in Tapiador v. OOMB. b. Res judicata barred the OOMB from exercising

a.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

6.

administrative disciplinary authority because the DPWH had resolved the same case. c. Reliance on good faith on documents submitted by constructors, coupled with lack of undue injury to the govt cannot give rise to administrative liability. Razo had appealed the same decision to the CA earlier than the other respondents, but her appeal was denied.

2. 3.

Central University (MCU), BSBA. As proof, Rojas submitted a Certification issued by MCU saying that they had no such graduate. OOMB found him guilty and meted out the penalty of dismissal. The CA reversed the OOMB. a. Lack of an NBI report proving that the handwritings and signatures on the PDS were Danaos. b. The Tapiador doctrine was again cited. b.

G.R. No. 160410 [The Gift Checks Case] 1. Nicasio I. Marte filed a complaint against Dr. Nellie Apolonio and Rogelio P. Montealto, offices of the Natl Book Devt Board, with grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. a. It was alleged that Montealto requested Apolonio for a cash advance (P88k) be issued in Apolonios name to cover the expenses for a Team Building Workshop. b. Such was issued and was used to purchase gift checks from SM North EDSA before being distributed to the members who attended the workshop. 2. An administrative inquiry was conducted, giving the respondents an opportunity to present their side of the story: a. Apolonio: the members requested that they be allowed o share the budget with their families during the Christmas season. b. Montealto: only participation was in making the request. No malice nor intent to defraud the government attended such request. 3. OOMB found them guilty and meted out the penalty of dismissal. 4. CA reversed, claiming that the OOMB has no jurisdiction to directly dismiss govt employees on the basis of the Tapiador doctrine. G.R. Nos. 160505 and 160627 [PDS Case] 1. Roseller Rojas, Special Agent I of the Bureau of CustomsEnforcement and Security Services, filed a letter-complaint against Virgilio M. Danao, Director III, for dishonesty. a. Danao falsely made it appear in his Personal Data Sheets (PDS) that he is a graduate of the Manila

G.R. No. 161099 [The Customs Case] 1. Samsung Mobile Corp. imported, on two occasions, 1,020 units of cellphones. a. In both shipments, it represented itself as a first-time importer, hence its failure to secure the clean report of findings (CRF). It nonetheless offered to pay duty, tax, and penalty for non-compliance with the CRF requirement. b. The Societe Generale de Surveillance (SS) Manila Liaison Office, however, produced respective copies of the CRF on the importations, valued at $140k for each. 2. In both importations, Samsung submitted with the BOC spurious commercial invoices as well as a fake permit from the NTC. 3. Samsung valued its first importation at $480, while it valued the second at $20,400, despite being similar in quality. 4. Concerned Customs Examiners appraised the shipments and found both to be grossly undervalued. 5. The OOMBs Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau recommended the filing of administrative complaints against Sonia GonzalesDela Cerna, Chief of the Entry Processing Unit, MIASCOR Composite Unit at the BOC, Milagros Umali-Ventura, Customs Document Processor of the Cargohaus Collection Unit, and Marius Aseron, Customs Examiner. 6. The FFIB charged the abovementioned individuals with gross neglect of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, inefficiency, and incompetence in the performance of duty. 7. Graft Investigation Office Oscar Bohol exonerated the three. However, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito Gervacio,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

8.

Jr. found Dela Cerna and Ventura guilty of simple neglect of duty. The CA reversed such decision, on the premise that the power of the Ombudsman is merely recommendatory.

directly remove from government service an erring public official. Now, in view of the above disquisition, the SC deems it fit to reinstate the Ombudsmans decisions with respect to G.R. Nos. 160410 [The Gift Checks Case] and 161099 [The Customs Case]. HOWEVER, the threeother cases raise additional issues, aside from the Tapiador doctrine, that the SC deems it fit to pass upon. [This part can be skipped, I think.] G.R. No. 158672 [The Bidding Case] 1. Res judicata cannot be made to apply here. a. The Ombudsman had already acquired jurisdiction when the DPWH learned of the case. b. DPWH was only furnished a copy of the complaint filed with the OOMB when it decided to conduct its own inquiry. c. The DPWHs investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. 2. Hence, the decision of CA must also be reversed in this case. G.R. Nos. 160605 and 160627 [PDS Case] 1. No substantial evidence is present to support the OOMBs decision. a. No proof that the signatures and thumbmarks were Danaos. b. It does not appear that it was Danao who accomplished the form. 2. Hence, the CAs decision in this case stands. DISPOSITIVE: 1. In G.R. No. 158672 [COA v. Hinampas, et al.]: The May 29, 2003 decision of the CA in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 70137 is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Ombudsman in OMB-MIN-ADM-00-032 is REINSTATED; 2. In G.R. No. 160410 [OOMB v. Montealto]: The assailed CA

ISSUE: WON the disciplinary power of the Ombudsman is recommendatory in nature. RULING: NO. The CA is wrong in holding such. The disciplinary power of the Ombudsman is not merely recommendatory. As such, the CAs reliance on the so-called Tapiador doctrine is wrong. RATIO: The so-called Tapiador doctrine, as laid out in jurisprudence, is a mere obiter. Tapiador interpreted Sec. 13, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution1. In view of Tapiadors obiter, the SC deemed it fit to say that the word recommend must be taken in conjunction with the phrase and ensure compliance therewith. 1. Ledesma v. CA: 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 Hence, it cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of this Court 2. Estarija v. Ranada: The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. a. Through the enactment of R.A. 6770, specifically Sec. 15, par. 3 thereof, the lawmakers gave the OOMB such powers to err officials and employees, except members of Congress, and the Judiciary. b. The OOMB has, therefore, the constitutional power to
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
1

xxx xxx xxx (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. (Emphasis supplied)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

decision of October 14, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 73991 is SET ASIDE and the Ombudsman's August 16, 2002 Memorandum Order in OMB-ADM-0-00-0405 is REINSTATED; 3. In G.R. Nos. 160605 & 160627 [OOMB v. Danao; Rojas v. Danao]: The assailed decision and resolution of the CA in CAG.R. SP No. 72790 are AFFIRMED. In G.R. No. 161099 [OOMB v. Gonzales-dela Cerna, et al.]: The CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 74222 dated December 3, 2003 is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM0-00-0183 is REINSTATED.

4.