Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASE DIGESTS
PubOMBUDSMAN vs CA and
Armilla, et. al.
June 16, 2006
Callejo, Sr., J.:]
Mica Maurinne M. Adao
1/30
Powers of the Ombudsman provided in RA 6770: (1) [it] can, on its own,
investigate any apparent illegality, irregularity, impropriety, or inefficiency
committed by any public officer or employee not excepted from its
disciplinary authority; (2) it can and must act on administrative complaints
against them; (3) it can conduct administrative adjudication proceedings;
(4) it can determine their guilt; (5) at its discretion, it can fix the penalty in
case of guilt; (6) it can order the head of the office or agency to which the
guilty public officer belongs to implement the penalty imposed; and (7) it
can ensure compliance with the implementation of the penalty it fixed.
2/30
3/30
4/30
5/30
6/30
within five (5) days after receipt of written notice and shall
be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
(1) New evidence has been discovered which
materially affects the order, directive or decision;
(2) Errors of law or irregularities have been
committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant.
The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved
within three (3) days from filing: Provided, That only
one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
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
months salary shall be final and unappealable.
FACTS:
7/30
8/30
ISSUES:
1. Does Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting
midnight appointments apply to local elective officials? NO.
Issue 2
employee welfare.
(c)
The personnel selection board shall be headed by the local
sanggunian concerned. A representative of the Civil Service Commission, if
any, and the personnel officer of the local government unit concerned shall
be ex officio members of the board.
9/30
10/30
11/30
Remolona v. CSC
August 2, 2001
Puno, J.
Jadd Chururuchuru Dealino
12/30
ISSUES:
1) Whether a civil service employee (Estelito) can be
dismissed for an offense that is not work/official dutyrelated?
2) Whether Estelitos right to due process was violated
when he was not assisted by counsel during the
preliminary investigation?
3) Whether Estelitos extra-judicial admission is admissible?
4) Whether Estelitos Motion for New Trial should be
granted since the TSN of the CSC hearing was not
forwarded to the CA?
5) Whether the penalty is too harsh?
RULING: Yes, a civil service employee can be dismissed for
an offense that is related to neither their work nor official
duty.
RATIO:
1) Yes, a civil service employee (Estelito) can be dismissed
for an offense that is not work/official duty-related.
A) Remolona: Since the removal must be for cause as
provided by law (based on the Security of Tenure
provision in the Constitution), it follows that the act
of dishonesty should have been committed in his
performance of his functions and duties as
Postmaster.
B) SC: The act complained of does not have to be
committed in the course of performance of official
13/30
14/30
Bernardo v. CA
May 27, 2004
Callejo, Sr. , J.
Manzano
15/30
person charged.
The principle is that when an officer or employee is
disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of
such officer or employee but the improvement of the public
service and the preservation of the publics faith and
confidence in the government.
FACTS:
1. Armando Bernardo was the Head of the Loans and
Discount Division of the Land Bank of the
Philippines(LBP).
2. One day, Bernardo deposited the amount of P500,000 in
his savings account with LBP. After making the said
deposit, he photocopied that page in his bank passbook
where the deposit of P500,000 was reflected and, on
the same day, withdrew the said amount. He also
executed, in his capacity as treasurer-in-trust of the
Markay Trading and Manpower Services, Inc. (MTMSI), a
Treasurers Affidavit, falsely certifying that:
at least 25% of the authorized capital stock of the corporation
has been subscribed and 25% of the total subscription has been
paid and received by me in cash or property in the amount
of P500,000.00 in accordance with the Corporation Code.
16/30
17/30
CSC v Belagan
October 19, 2004
Sandoval-Gutierez, J
Rods (you can skip issue I and ratio I)
Note: I omitted parts of the case relating to Gapuzs testimony, as
they are not relevant to the issue related to our topic in PubOff. In
case sir asks, please refer to the original copy of the case
18/30
19/30
7.
DECS conducted a joint investigation, with Belagan
denying the charge of sexual harassment, and presenting
evidence to disprove the charge against him for
dereliction of duty.
a. DECS Sec found him guilty of 4 counts of sexual
indignities or harassments committed against
Annawi, and 2counts of sexual advances or
indignities against Gapuz.
b. He was ordered dismissed.
8.
CSC affirmed the DECS Secs decision with regard to
Gapuzs case, but dismissed that of Annawis.
a. Belagans acts constitutes grave misconduct 9.
b. He was still ordered dismissed.
9.
Belagan filed an MR, while Gapuz was charged with
several offenses before the MTC Baguio City10(22 in all).
10.
Gapuz was also respondent in several cases filed
with Bgy. Chairmen of Bgy. Gabriela Silang and Bgy.
Hillside in Baguio11(23 in all).
11.
Belagan claimed that these cases casted doubt on
the character, integrity, and credibility of Gapuz.
12.
CSC denied the MR of Belagan.
a. The character of a woman who was the subject of a
sexual assault is of minor significance in the
The acts of Belagan are serious breach of good conduct since he was
holding a position which requires the incumbent thereof to maintain a high
degree of moral uprightness. As Division Superintendent, Belagan
represents an institution tasked to mold the character of children.
Furthermore, one of his duties is to ensure that teachers in his division
conduct themselves properly and observe the proper discipline. Any
improper behavior on his part will seriously impair his moral ascendancy
over the teachers and students which can not be tolerated. Therefore, his
misconduct towards an applicant for a permit to operate a private
pre-school cannot be treated lightly and constitutes the offense of
grave misconduct.
10
Light oral defamation, slight physical injuries, grave threats, malicious
mischief, light threats, grave oral defamation, light oral defamation, unjust
vexation
11
RATIO:
I. WON Gapuz was a credible witness [NOT IMPORTANT]
1. Generally, the character of a party is regarded as
legally irrelevant in determining a controversy. One
statutory exception is that relied upon by respondent,
i.e., Section 51 (a) 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence.
2. The Court said that the provision applies only to
criminal cases.
3. Assuming that it does apply, still Belagans position
that Gapuzs record belies her charges cannot be
sustained.
a. Character evidence must be limited to the traits
and characteristics involved in the type of offense
charged
20/30
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
21/30
Villanueva v. Court of
Appeals
July 20, 2006
Tinga, J.
Paolo Q. Bernardo
The facts in the Summary-Doctrine box should be enough. Pardon
also the long spaces in said box; I could not fix it.
22/30
FACTS:
23/30
24/30
i.
ii.
ii.
25/30
ii.
Bacsin v. Wahiman
April 30, 2008
Velasco, Jr., J.
Francis G. Francisco
charge against him. CSC, CA, and SC held him liable for
grave misconduct.
DOCTRINE: The charge against the respondent in an
administrative case need not be drafted with the precision
of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient
that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against
him. What is controlling is the allegation of the acts
complained of, not the designation of the offense. Due
process, as applied to administrative proceedings, is an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to
seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.
FACTS: Dioscoro Bacsin is a public school teacher
of Pandan Elementary School, Pandan, Camiguin Province.
Eduardo Wahiman is the father of AAA, an elementary
school student of the Bacsin. AAA claimed that Bacsin asked
her to go to his office where Bacsin held her hand, then
touched and fondled her breast five times. Vincent B.
Sorrabas, AAAs classmate, witnessed the incident and
testified that the fondling happened. Regional Director
Muego of the SCS charged Bacsin with Misconduct. Bacsin
claimed that the touching happened by accident, just as he
was handing AAA a lesson book which happened in about 2
or 3 seconds, and that the girl left his office without any
complaint.
CSC found Bacsin guilty of Grave Misconduct(Acts of Sexual
Harassment defined in Sec. 3 of RA 7877, the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act of 1995), and dismissed him from the
service.
The CA ruled that Bacsin had the opportunity to be heard
and due process was not violated. Even if Bacsin was
formally charged with disgraceful and immoral conduct and
misconduct, the CSC found that the allegations and
evidence sufficiently proved Bacsins guilt of grave
misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service.
26/30
Narvasa v Sanchez
March 26, 2010
Per curiam
Rods
27/30
5.
Gayatons allegations:
a. In 2002, Sanchez whispered to her during a
retirement program Oy flawless, pumanaw ka met
ditan12 while twice pinching her upper left arm near
the shoulder in a slow manner.
b. After a few days, she received a text while she was
passing Sanchezs car in front of the municipal hall
which said: Pauwi ka na ba sexy?
c. She later verified with one Agas, Sanchezs clerk, that
the sender was indeed Sanchez.
d. She later received several messages from Sanchez:
(1) I like you; (2) Have a date with me; (3) Dont
tell to (sic) others that I told that I like you because
nakakahiya; (4) Puso mo to pag bigay motosakin, I
would be very happy and (5) I slept and dreamt nice
things about you.
6.
Narvasas complaint:
a. In 2000, during a field trip of officers and members of
the St. Joseph Multi-Purpose Cooperative to the
Grotto Vista Resort in Bulacan, Sanchez pulled her
towards him and attempted to kiss her.
b. She was able to escape him, and Sanchez apologized
thrice about the incident.
7.
Sanchez was found guilty by Mayor Padilla of all 3
charges based on the investigation conducted by the
LGUs Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI).
a. For the offenses committed against De la Cruz and
Gayaton, Sanchez was meted the penalties of
reprimand for his first offense of light harassment and
30 days suspension for his first offense of less grave
sexual harassment.
b. For the one against Narvasa, it was deemed to be
grave sexual harassment for which he was dismissed
from the government service.
8.
CSC, on appeal, passed only on the decision in the
case filed by Narvasa, since under CSC rules, the penalty
of reprimand and/or suspension of not more than 30 days
cannot be appealed.
12
28/30
5.
6.
7.
8.
29/30
30/30