Office of The Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Uldarico P. ANDUTAN, JR., Respondent

11/4/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME654
G.R.No.164679.July27,2011.*
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. ULDARICO P.

ANDUTAN,JR.,respondent.
OmbudsmanAdministrativeInvestigationsPrescriptionSection20of
R.A. 6770 does not prohibit the Ombudsman from conducting an
administrative investigation after the lapse of one year reckoned from the
time the alleged act was committed.Section 20 of R.A. 6770 does not
prohibit the Ombudsman from conducting an administrative investigation
after the lapse of one year, reckoned from the time the alleged act was
committed.Withoutdoubt,eveniftheadministrativecasewasfiledbeyond
the one (1) year period stated in Section 20(5), the Ombudsman was well
withinitsdiscretiontoconducttheadministrativeinvestigation.
Same Same Same The Ombudsman can no longer institute an
administrative case against Andutan because the latter was not a public
servant at the time the case was filed.Although the Ombudsman is not
precludedbySection20(5)ofR.A.6770fromconductingtheinvestigation,
the Ombudsman can no longer institute an administrative case against
Andutanbecausethelatterwasnotapublicservantatthetimethecasewas
filed.
SameSameSameApublicofficialsresignationdoesnotrendermoot
anadministrativecasethatwasfiledpriortotheofficialsresignation.To
recall, we have held in the past that a public officials resignation does not
render moot an administrative case that was filed prior to the officials
resignation.
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
540
540
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
OfficeoftheOmbudsmanvs.Andutan,Jr.
Same Same Words and Phrases Threefold Liability Rule Under the
threefoldliabilityrule,thewrongfulactsoromissionsofapublicofficer
maygiverisetocivil,criminalandadministrativeliability.TheStateisnot
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001582b04e48755290621003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/18
11/4/2016
without remedy against Andutan or any public official who committed

violations while in office, but had already resigned or retired therefrom.
Under the threefold liability rule, the wrongful acts or omissions of a
public officer may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability.
EveniftheOmbudsmanmaynolongerfileanadministrativecaseagainsta
publicofficialwhohasalreadyresignedorretired,theOmbudsmanmaystill
filecriminalandcivilcasestovindicateAndutansallegedtransgressions.In
fact, here, the Ombudsmanthrough the FFIBfiled a criminal case for
Estafa and violations of Section 3(a), (e) and (j) of the AntiGraft and
Corrupt Practices Act against Andutan. If found guilty, Andutan will not
only be meted out the penalty of imprisonment, but also the penalties of
perpetual disqualification from office, and confiscation or forfeiture of any
prohibitedinterest.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
BenjaminC.Santosforrespondent.
Santos,Parungao,Aquino&SantosLawOfficescocounselfor
respondent.
BRION,J.:
Throughapetitionforreviewoncertiorari,1thepetitionerOffice
oftheOmbudsman(Ombudsman)seeksthereversalofthedecision2
oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),datedJuly28,2004,inUldarico P.
Andutan, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman and Fact Finding and
Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), etc., docketed as CAG.R. SP No.
68893.Theassaileddecision
_______________
1Rollo,pp.1274filedunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
2Id.,atpp.7683pennedbyAssociateJusticeRobertoA.Barrios,andconcurred
inbyAssociateJusticesAmelitaG.TolentinoandVicenteS.E.Veloso.
541
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
541
annulledandsetasidethedecisionoftheOmbudsmandatedJuly30,
2001,3 finding Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr. guilty of Gross Neglect of
Duty.
TheFactualAntecedents
AndutanwasformerlytheDeputyDirectoroftheOneStopShop
TaxCreditandDutyDrawbackCenteroftheDepartmentofFinance
(DOF). On June 30, 1998, then Executive Secretary Ronaldo
Zamora issued a Memorandum directing all noncareer officials or
thoseoccupyingpoliticalpositionstovacatetheirpositionseffective
4
July 1, 1998. On July 1, 1998, pursuant to the

Memorandum,
2/18
11/4/2016
July 1, 1998. On July 1, 1998, pursuant to the Memorandum,

AndutanresignedfromtheDOF.5
On September 1, 1999, Andutan, together with Antonio P.
Belicena, former Undersecretary, DOF Rowena P. Malonzo, Tax
Specialist I, DOF Benjamin O. Yao, Chairman and Executive
Officer, Steel Asia Manufacturing Corporation (Steel Asia)
Augustus S. Lapid, VicePresident, Steel Asia Antonio M.
Lorenzana, President and Chief Operating Officer, Steel Asia and
Eulogio L. Reyes, General Manager, Devmark Textiles Ind. Inc.,
wascriminallychargedbytheFactFindingandIntelligenceBureau
(FFIB) of the Ombudsman with Estafa through Falsification of
Public Documents, and violations of Section 3(a), (e) and (j) of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019, otherwise known as the AntiGraft
and Corrupt Practices Act.6 As government employees, Andutan,
Belicena and Malonzo were likewise administratively charged of
GraveMisconduct,Dishonesty,FalsificationofOfficialDocuments
andConductPrejudicialtotheBestInterestoftheService.7
_______________
3Id.,atpp.173188.
4Id.,atp.163.
5Id.,atp.164.
6Id.,atp.22.
7Ibid.
542
542
Thecriminalandadministrativechargesarosefromanomaliesin
the illegal transfer of Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) to Steel Asia,
amongothers.8
During the investigation, the FFIB found that Steel Asia
fraudulentlyobtainedTCCsworthTwoHundredFortyTwoMillion,
Four Hundred ThirtyThree Thousand, Five Hundred ThirtyFour
Pesos (P242,433,534.00).9 The FFIB concluded that Belicena,
Malonzo and Andutanin their respective capacitiesirregularly
approved the issuance of the TCCs to several garment/textile
companies and allowing their subsequent illegal transfer to Steel
Asia.10
OnNovember11,1999,theOmbudsmanorderedtherespondents
therein (respondents) to submit their counteraffidavits. Only
Malonzocompliedwiththeorder,promptingtheOmbudsmantoset
aPreliminaryConferenceonMarch13,2000.
Upon the respondents failure to appear at the March 20, 2000
hearing,theOmbudsmandeemedthecasesubmittedforresolution.
3/18
11/4/2016
OnJuly30,2001,theOmbudsmanfoundtherespondentsguilty
ofGrossNeglectofDuty.11Havingbeenseparatedfromtheservice,
Andutan was imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all leaves,
retirement and other benefits and privileges, and perpetual
disqualification from reinstatement and/or reemployment in any
branchorinstrumentalityofthegovernment,includinggovernment
ownedandcontrolledagenciesorcorporations.12
After failing to obtain a reconsideration of the decision,13
AndutanfiledapetitionforreviewoncertioraribeforetheCA.
_______________
8Id.,atp.77.
9Id.,atp.78.
10Id.,atpp.7778.
11Supranote3.
12Id.,atp.186.
13Rollo,pp.189202.
543
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
543
OnJuly28,2004,14theCAannulledandsetasidethedecisionof
the Ombudsman, ruling that the latter should not have considered
the administrative complaints because: first, Section 20 of R.A.
6770providesthattheOmbudsmanmaynotconductthenecessary
investigationofanyadministrativeactoromissioncomplainedofif
it believes that x x x [t]he complaint was filed after one year from
theoccurrenceoftheactoromissioncomplainedof15andsecond,
the administrative case was filed after Andutans forced
resignation.16
ThePetitionersArguments
Inthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari,theOmbudsmanasksthe
Court to overturn the decision of the CA. It submits, first, that
contrary to the CAs findings, administrative offenses do not
prescribeafteroneyearfromtheircommission,17andsecond,thatin
cases of capital administrative offenses, resignation or optional
retirement cannot render administrative proceedings moot and
academic, since accessory penalties such as perpetual
disqualificationandtheforfeitureofretirementbenefitsmaystillbe
imposed.18
The Ombudsman argues that Section 20 of R.A. 6770 is not
mandatory. Consistent with existing jurisprudence, the use of the
word may indicates that Section 20 is merely directory or
permissive.19 Thus, it is not ministerial upon it to dismiss the
4/18
11/4/2016
administrativecomplaint,aslongasanyofthecircumstancesunder
Section20ispresent.20Inanycase,theOmbudsmanurgestheCourt
to examine its mandate under Section 13, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution,andholdthatan
_______________
14Supranote2.
15Id.,atpp.8182.
16Id.,atp.82.
17Rollo,p.26.
18Id.,atpp.6365.
19Id.,atp.29.
20Id.,atpp.2930.
544
544
impositionofaone(1)yearprescriptiveperiodonthefilingofcases
unconstitutionallyrestrictsitsmandate.21
Further, the Ombudsman submits that Andutans resignation
from office does not render moot the administrative proceedings
lodged against him, even after his resignation. Relying on Section
VI(1) of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular
No. 38,22 the Ombudsman argues that [a]s long as the breach of
conduct was committed while the public official or employee was
stillintheservicexxxapublicservantsresignationisnotabarto
his administrative investigation, prosecution and adjudication.23 It
isirrelevantthatAndutanhadalreadyresignedfromofficewhenthe
administrative case was filed since he was charged for acts
performedinofficewhichareinimicaltotheserviceandprejudicial
to the interests of litigants and the general public.24 Furthermore,
evenifAndutanhadalreadyresigned,thereisaneedtodetermine
whether or not there remains penalties capable of imposition, like
bar from reentering the (sic) public service and forfeiture of
benefits.25 Finally, the Ombudsman reiterates that its findings
againstAndutanaresupportedbysubstantialevidence.
_______________
21Id.,atpp.3334.
22SectionVI.
1.xxx
23Anofficer or employee under administrative investigation may be allowed to
resignpendingdecisionofhiscasebutitshallbewithoutprejudicetothecontinuation
oftheproceedingagainsthim.Itshallalsobewithoutprejudicetothefilingofany
5/18
11/4/2016
administrative, criminal case against him for any act committed while still in the
service.
Rollo,p.57.
24Id.,atp.59,citingPerezv.Abiera,A.C.No.223J,June11,1975,64SCRA302.
545
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
545
TheRespondentsArguments
Andutan raises three (3) counterarguments to the Ombudsmans
petition.
First, Andutan submits that the CA did not consider Section
20(5) of R.A. 6770 as a prescriptive period rather, the CA merely
held that the Ombudsman should not have considered the
administrative complaint. According to Andutan, Section 20(5)
doesnotpurporttoimposeaprescriptiveperiodxxxbutsimply
prohibits the Office of the Ombudsman from conducting an
investigationwherethecomplaint[was]filedmorethanone(1)year
from the occurrence of the act or omission complained of.26
Andutan believes that the Ombudsman should have referred the
complaint to another government agency.27 Further, Andutan
disagrees with the Ombudsmans interpretation of Section 20(5).
Andutan suggests that the phrase may not conduct the necessary
investigation means that the Ombudsman is prohibited to act on
casesthatfallunderthoseenumeratedinSection20(5).28
Second, Andutan reiterates that the administrative case against
himwasmootbecausehewasnolongerinthepublicserviceatthe
timethecasewascommenced.29Accordingto
_______________
25Id.,atpp.6263.
26Id.,atp.255.
27Ibid.
28 Id., at p. 256 relying on Ruben Agpalo, Statutory Construction 338 (4th ed.,
1998):
Theusebythelegislatureofnegative,prohibitoryorexclusivetermsorwordsina
statuteisindicativeofthelegislativeintenttomakethestatutemandatory.Astatute
or provision which contains words of positive prohibition, such as shall not,
cannot,oroughtnot,orwhichiscouchedinnegativetermsimportingthattheact
shall not be done otherwise than designated is mandatory. Prohibitive or negative
wordscanrarely,ifever,bedirectory,forthereisbutonewaytoobeythecommand,
thoushallnot,andthatistocompletelyrefrainfromdoingtheforbiddenact.
29Id.,atp.257.
546
6/18
11/4/2016
546
Andutan,Atty.Perezv.JudgeAbiera30andsimilarcasescitedbythe
Ombudsman do not apply since the administrative investigations
against the respondents in those cases were commenced prior to
their resignation. Here, Andutan urges the Court to rule otherwise
since unlike the cases cited, he had already resigned before the
administrative case was initiated. He further notes that his
resignationfromofficecannotbecharacterizedaspreemptive,i.e.
made under an atmosphere of fear for the imminence of formal
charges31becauseitwasdonepursuanttotheMemorandumissued
bythenExecutiveSecretaryRonaldoZamora.
Havingestablishedtheproprietyofhisresignation,Andutanasks
theCourttoupholdthemootnessoftheadministrativecaseagainst
himsincethecardinalissueinadministrativecasesistheofficers
fitness to remain in office, the principal penalty imposable being
either suspension or removal.32 The Ombudsmans opinionthat
accessorypenaltiesmaystillbeimposedisuntenablesinceitisa
fundamental legal principle that accessory follows the principal,
andtheformercannotexistindependentlyofthelatter.33
Third,theOmbudsmansfindingswerevoidbecauseprocedural
andsubstantivedueprocesswerenotobserved.Likewise,Andutan
submits that the Ombudsmans findings lacked legal and factual
bases.
Issues
Based on the submissions made, we see the following as the
issuesforourresolution:
_______________
30159APhil.57564SCRA302(1975).
31Rollo,p.262.
32Ibid.
33Id.,atp.263.
547
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
547
I.DoesSection20(5)ofR.A.6770prohibittheOmbudsmanfrom
conducting an administrative investigation a year after the act
wascommitted?
II.DoesAndutansresignationrendermoottheadministrativecase
filedagainsthim?
7/18
11/4/2016
III.Assuming that the administrative case is not moot, are the

Ombudsmansfindingssupportedbysubstantialevidence?
TheCourtsRuling
Weruletodenythepetition.
TheprovisionsofSection20(5)aremerely
directorytheOmbudsmanisnotprohib
itedfromconductinganinvestigationa
yearafterthesupposedactwascommitted.
TheissueofwhetherSection20(5)ofR.A.6770ismandatoryor
discretionary has been settled by jurisprudence.34 In Office of the
Ombudsman v. De Sahagun,35 the Court, speaking through Justice
AustriaMartinez,held:
[W]ellentrenched is the rule that administrative offenses do not prescribe
[Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr., A.M. No. P991342, September 20,
2005,470SCRA218Melchorv.Gironella,G.R.No.151138,February16,
2005, 451 SCRA 476 Heck v. Judge Santos, 467 Phil. 798, 824 (2004)
Floriav.Sunga,420Phil.637,648649(2001)].Administrativeoffensesby
theirverynaturepertaintothecharacterofpublicofficersandemployees.In
disciplining public officers and employees, the object sought is not the
punishment of the officer or employee but the improvement of the public
service and the preservation of the publics faith and confidence in our
govern
_______________
34 Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun, G.R. No. 167982, August 13, 2008, 562
SCRA122,128.
35Id.,atpp.128130.
548
548
ment [Melchor v. Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005, 451
SCRA476,481Remolonav.CivilServiceCommission,414Phil.590,601
(2001)].
RespondentsinsistthatSection20(5)ofR.A.No.6770,towit:
SEC.20.Exceptions.The Office of the Ombudsman may not
conduct the necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission
complainedofifitbelievesthat:
xxxx
(5)The complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of
theactoromissioncomplainedof.(Emphasissupplied)
proscribes the investigation of any administrative act or omission if the
complaintwasfiledafteroneyearfromtheoccurrenceofthecomplainedact
8/18
11/4/2016
oromission.
In Melchor v. Gironella [G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005, 451
SCRA476], the Court held that the period stated in Section 20(5) of R.A.
No. 6770 does not refer to the prescription of the offense but to the
discretion given to the Ombudsman on whether it would investigate a
particularadministrativeoffense.Theuseofthewordmayintheprovision
is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion [Melchor v.
Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 476, 481
Jaramilla v. Comelec, 460 Phil. 507, 514 (2003)]. Where the words of a
statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, they must be given their
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation [Melchor v.
Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 476, 481
NationalFederationofLaborv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,383
Phil.910,918(2000)].
In Filipino v. Macabuhay [G.R. No. 158960, November 24, 2006, 508
SCRA 50], the Court interpreted Section 20 (5) of R.A. No. 6770 in this
manner:
Petitioner argues that based on the abovementioned provision
[Section 20(5) of RA 6770)], respondents complaint is barred by
prescriptionconsideringthatitwasfiledmorethanoneyearafterthe
allegedcommissionoftheactscomplainedof.
Petitionersargumentiswithoutmerit.
549
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
549
Theuseofthewordmayclearlyshowsthatitisdirectory
innatureandnotmandatoryaspetitionercontends.Whenused
in a statute, it is permissive only and operates to confer
discretion while the word shall is imperative, operating to
imposeadutywhichmaybeenforced.ApplyingSection20(5),
therefore,itisdiscretionaryupontheOmbudsmanwhether
ornottoconductaninvestigationonacomplaintevenifit
was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or
omission complained of. In fine, the complaint is not
barredbyprescription.(Emphasissupplied)
ThedeclarationoftheCAinitsassaileddecisionthatwhileasageneral
rulethewordmayisdirectory,thenegativephrasemaynotismandatory
in tenor that a directory word, when qualified by the word not,
becomes prohibitory and therefore becomes mandatory in character, is
not plausible. It is not supported by jurisprudence on statutory
construction.[emphasesandunderscoringsupplied]
Clearly, Section 20 of R.A. 6770 does not prohibit the

Ombudsman from conducting an administrative investigation after
the lapse of one year, reckoned from the time the alleged act was
committed.Withoutdoubt,eveniftheadministrativecasewasfiled
9/18
11/4/2016
beyond the one (1) year period stated in Section 20(5), the
Ombudsman was well within its discretion to conduct the
administrativeinvestigation.
However,thecruxofthepresentcontroversyisnotontheissue
of prescription, but on the issue of the Ombudsmans authority to
instituteanadministrativecomplaintagainstagovernmentemployee
whohadalreadyresigned.Onthisissue,weruleinAndutansfavor.
AndutansresignationdiveststheOm
budsmanofitsrighttoinstitutean
administrativecomplaintagainsthim.
Although the Ombudsman is not precluded by Section 20(5) of
R.A.6770fromconductingtheinvestigation,theOmbuds
550
550
mancannolongerinstituteanadministrativecaseagainstAndutan
becausethelatterwasnotapublicservantatthetimethecasewas
filed.
TheOmbudsmanarguedinboththepresentpetitionandinthe
petitionitfiledwiththeCAthatAndutansretirementfromoffice
does not render moot any administrative case, as long as he is
charged with an offense he committed while in office. It is
irrelevant, according to the Ombudsman, that Andutan had already
resigned prior to the filing of the administrative case since the
operativefactthatdeterminesitsjurisdictionisthecommissionofan
offensewhileinthepublicservice.
The Ombudsman relies on Section VI(1) of Civil Service
CommissionMemorandumCircularNo.38forthisproposition,viz.:
SectionVI.
1.xxx
Anofficeroremployeeunderadministrativeinvestigationmaybeallowedto
resign pending decision of his case but it shall be without prejudice to the
continuation of the proceeding against him. It shall also be without
prejudice to the filing of any administrative, criminal case against him
for any act committed while still in the service. (emphasis and
underscoringsupplied)
The CA refused to give credence to this argument, holding that

theprovisionreferstocaseswheretheofficersoremployeeswere
already charged before they were allowed to resign or were
separated from service.36 In this case, the CA noted that the
administrative cases were filed only after Andutan was retired,
hence the Ombudsman was already divested of jurisdiction and
couldnolongerprosecutethecases.37
10/18
11/4/2016
_______________
36Rollo,p.82.
37Ibid.
551
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
551
ChallengingtheCAsinterpretation,theOmbudsmanarguesthat
the CA limited the scope of the cited Civil Service Memorandum
Circular to the first sentence.38 Further, according to the
Ombudsman, the court aquoignored the second statement in the
said circular that contemplates a situation where previous to the
institution of the administrative investigation or charge, the public
officialoremployeesubjectoftheinvestigationhasresigned.39
To recall, we have held in the past that a public officials
resignation does not render moot an administrative case that was
filedpriortotheofficialsresignation.InPagano v. Nazarro, Jr.,40
weheldthat:
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan[A.M. No. P031726, 22
July 2004, 434 SCRA 654, 658], this Court categorically ruled that the
precipitate resignation of a government employee charged with an offense
punishable by dismissal from the service does not render moot the
administrative case against him. Resignation is not a way out to evade
administrative liability when facing administrative sanction. The
resignation of a public servant does not preclude the finding of any
administrative liability to which he or she shall still be answerable
[Baquerfo v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P051974, 6 April 2005, 455 SCRA 13,
1920].[emphasisandunderscoringsupplied]
Likewise,inBaquerfov.Sanchez,41weheld:
Cessation from office of respondent by resignation [Reyes v. Cristi,
A.M. No. P041801, 2 April 2004, 427 SCRA 8] or retirement [Re:
Complaint Filed by Atty. Francis Allan A. Rubio on the Alleged
FalsificationofPublicDocumentsandMalversationofPublicFunds,A.M.
No. 200417SC, 27 September 2004 Caja v. Nanquil, A.M. No. P04
1885, 13 September 2004] neither warrants the dismissal of the
administrativecomplaintfiledagainsthimwhilehewas
_______________
38Rollo,p.56.
39Ibid.
40G.R.No.149072,September21,2007,533SCRA622,628.
41495Phil.10,1617455SCRA13,1920(2005).
552
11/18
11/4/2016
552
still in the service [Tuliao v. Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ951065, 348 Phil.
404,416(1998),citingPerezv.Abiera, A.C. No. 223J, 11 June 1975, 64
SCRA302SecretaryofJusticev.Marcos,A.C.No.207J,22April1977,
76 SCRA 301] nor does it render said administrative case moot and
academic[SyBangv.Mendez, 350 Phil. 524, 533 (1998)]. The jurisdiction
thatwasthisCourtsatthetimeofthefilingoftheadministrativecomplaint
wasnotlostbythemerefactthattherespondentpublicofficialhadceasedin
officeduringthependencyofhiscase[Floresv.Sumaljag,353Phil.10,21
(1998)].Respondents resignation does not preclude the finding of any
administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable [OCA v.
Fernandez, A.M. No. MTJ031511, 20 August 2004]. [emphases and
underscoringsupplied)
However, the facts of those cases are not entirely applicable to

the present case. In the abovecited cases, the Court found that the
public officialssubject of the administrative casesresigned,
eithertopreventthecontinuationofacasealreadyfiled42ortopre
empttheimminentfilingofone.43Here,neithersituationobtains.
TheOmbudsmansgeneralassertionthatAndutanpreemptedthe
filingofacaseagainsthimbyresigning,sinceheknewforcertain
that the investigative and disciplinary arms of the State would
eventuallyreachhim44 is unfounded. First, Andutans resignation
wasneitherhischoicenorofhisowndoinghewasforcedtoresign.
Second,AndutanresignedfromhisDOFpostonJuly1,1998,while
theadministrativecasewasfiledonSeptember1,1999,exactlyone
(1) year and two (2) months after his resignation. The Court
strugglestofind
_______________
42SeeBaquerfov.Sanchez,supra note 41 and Tuliaov.JudgeRamos, 348 Phil.
404,416284SCRA378(1998),citingPerezv.Abiera,A.C.No.223J,11June1975,
64 SCRA 302, Secretary of Justice v. Marcos, A.C. No. 207J, 22 April 1997, 76
SCRA301.
43SeePaganov.Nazarro,Jr.,supranote40andOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator
v.Juan,478Phil.823434SCRA654(2004).
44Rollo,pp.6162.
553
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
553
reason in the Ombudsmans sweeping assertions in light of these

facts.
12/18
11/4/2016
What is clear from the records is that Andutan was forced to

resign more than a year before the Ombudsman filed the
administrative case against him. Additionally, even if we were to
accepttheOmbudsmanspositionthatAndutanforesawthefilingof
thecaseagainsthim,hisforcedresignationnegatestheclaimthathe
triedtopreventthefilingoftheadministrativecase.
Having established the inapplicability of prevailing
jurisprudence,weturnourattentiontotheprovisionsofSectionVI
of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38. We disagree with the
Ombudsmansinterpretationthat[a]slongasthebreachofconduct
wascommittedwhilethepublicofficialoremployeewasstillinthe
service x x x a public servants resignation is not a bar to his
administrative investigation, prosecution and adjudication.45Ifwe
agree with this interpretation, any officialeven if he has been
separated from the service for a long timemay still be subject to
thedisciplinaryauthorityofhissuperiors,adinfinitum.Webelieve
that this interpretation is inconsistent with the principal motivation
ofthelawwhichistoimprovepublicserviceandtopreservethe
publics faith and confidence in the government, and not the
punishment of the public official concerned.46 Likewise, if the act
committed
_______________
45Anofficer or employee under administrative investigation may be allowed to
resignpendingdecisionofhiscasebutitshallbewithoutprejudicetothecontinuation
oftheproceedingagainsthim.Itshallalsobewithoutprejudicetothefilingofother
administrativeorcriminalcaseagainsthimforanyactcommittedwhilestillinthe
service.
Id.,atp.57.
46 Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun, supra note 34, at p. 128, citing
Melchorv.Gironella,G.R.No.151138,February16,2005,451SCRA476,481and
Remolonav.CivilServiceCommission,414Phil.590,601362SCRA304(2001).See
alsoBautistav.Negado,108Phil.283(1960).
554
554
bythepublicofficialisindeedinimicaltotheinterestsoftheState,
otherlegalmechanismsareavailabletoredressthesame.
Thepossibilityofimposing
accessorypenaltiesdoesnot
negatetheOmbudsmanslack
ofjurisdiction.
The Ombudsman suggests that although the issue of Andutans
removal from the service is moot, there is an irresistible
13/18
11/4/2016
justification to determine whether or not there remains penalties

capable of imposition, like bar from reentering the public service
and forfeiture of benefits.47 Otherwise stated, since accessory
penalties may still be imposed against Andutan, the administrative
caseitselfisnotmootandmayproceeddespitetheinapplicabilityof
theprincipalpenaltyofremovalfromoffice.
Wefindseveralreasonsthatmilitateagainstthisposition.
First, although we have held that the resignation of an official
doesnotrenderanadministrativecasemootandacademicbecause
accessorypenaltiesmaystillbeimposed,thisholdingmustberead
initspropercontext.InPaganov.Nazarro,Jr.,48indeed,weheld:
A case becomes moot and academic only when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in
passing upon the merits of the case [Tantoy, Sr. v. Abrogar, G.R. No.
156128,9May2005,458SCRA301,305].Theinstantcaseisnotmootand
academic,despitethepetitionersseparationfromgovernmentservice.Even
if the most severe of administrative sanctionsthat of separation from
servicemay no longer be imposed on the petitioner, there are other
penalties which may be imposed on her if she is later found guilty of
administrative offenses charged against her, namely, the disqualification
to
_______________
47Rollo,pp.6263.
48Supranote40,atp.628.
555
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
555
holdanygovernmentofficeandtheforfeitureofbenefits.[emphasisand
underscoringsupplied]
Readingthequotedpassageinavacuum,onecouldbeledtothe
conclusionthatthemereavailabilityofaccessorypenaltiesjustifies
the continuation of an administrative case. This is a misplaced
readingofthecaseanditsruling.
EstherS.PaganowhowasservingasCashierIVattheOffice
of the Provincial Treasurer of Benguetfiled her certificate of
candidacy for councilor four days after the Provincial Treasurer
directed her to explain why no administrative case should be filed
against her. The directive arose from allegations that her
accountabilitiesincludedacashshortageofP1,424,289.99.Shefiled
her certificate of candidacy under the pretext that since she was
deemedipsofactoresignedfromoffice,shewasnolongerunderthe
administrative jurisdiction of her superiors. Thus, according to
Pagano,theadministrativecomplainthadbecomemoot.
14/18
11/4/2016
We rejected Paganos position on the principal ground that the

precipitate resignation of a government employee charged with an
offense punishable by dismissal from the service does not render
moottheadministrativecaseagainsthim.Resignationisnotaway
out to evade administrative liability when facing administrative
sanction.49Ourpositionthataccessorypenaltiesarestillimposable
therebynegatingthemootnessoftheadministrativecomplaint
merelyflowsfromthefactthatPaganopreemptedthefilingofthe
administrativecaseagainsther.Itwasneitherintendedtobeastand
alone argument nor would it have justified the continuation of the
administrativecomplaintifPaganosfilingofcandidacy/resignation
didnotreekofirregularities.OurfactualfindingsinPaganoconfirm
this,viz.:
_______________
49 Pagano v. Nazarro, Jr., supra note 40, at p. 628, citing Office of the Court
Administratorv.Juan,A.M.No.P031726,22July2004,434SCRA654,658.
556
556
At the time petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy, petitioner was

already notified by the Provincial Treasurer that she needed to explain why
no administrative charge should be filed against her, after it discovered the
cash shortage of P1,424,289.99 in her accountabilities. Moreover, she had
already filed her answer. To all intents and purposes, the administrative
proceedings had already been commenced at the time she was
considered separated from service through her precipitate filing of her
certificate of candidacy. Petitioners bad faith was manifest when she
filed it, fully knowing that administrative proceedings were being
institutedagainstheraspartoftheproceduraldueprocessinlayingthe
foundation for an administrative case.50 (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Plainly,ourjustificationforthecontinuationoftheadministrative
casenotwithstandingPaganosresignationwasherbadfaithin
filing the certificate of candidacy, and not the availability of
accessorypenalties.
Second, weagreewiththe Ombudsman that fitness to serve in
public office x x x is a question of transcendental [importance]51
and that preserving the inviolability of public office compels the
statetopreventthereentry[to]publicserviceofpersonswhohave
x x x demonstrated their absolute lack of fitness to hold public
office.52 However, the State must perform this task within the
limits set by law, particularly, the limits of jurisdiction. As earlier
stated,undertheOmbudsmanstheory,theadministrativeauthorities
15/18
11/4/2016
may exercise administrative jurisdiction over subordinates ad

infinitum thus, a public official who has validly severed his ties
with the civil service may still be the subject of an administrative
complaint up to his deathbed. This is contrary to the law and the
publicpolicybehindit.
Lastly, the State is not without remedy against Andutan or any
publicofficialwhocommittedviolationswhileinoffice,
_______________
50Id.,atp.631.
51Rollo,p.63.
52Id.,atp.65.
557
VOL.654,JULY27,2011
557
buthadalreadyresignedorretiredtherefrom.Underthethreefold
liabilityrule,thewrongfulactsoromissionsofapublicofficermay
giverisetocivil,criminalandadministrativeliability.53Evenifthe
Ombudsman may no longer file an administrative case against a
publicofficialwhohasalreadyresignedorretired,theOmbudsman
maystillfilecriminalandcivilcasestovindicateAndutansalleged
transgressions.Infact,here,theOmbudsmanthroughtheFFIB
filed a criminal case for Estafa and violations of Section 3(a), (e)
and(j)oftheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesActagainstAndutan.
If found guilty, Andutan will not only be meted out the penalty of
imprisonment, but also the penalties of perpetual disqualification
from office, and confiscation or forfeiture of any prohibited
interest.54
Conclusion
Publicofficeisapublictrust.Nopreceptofadministrativelawis
morebasicthanthis statement of what assumption of public office
involves.Thestabilityofourpublicinstitutionsreliesontheability
ofourcivilservantstoservetheirconstituencieswell.
While we commend the Ombudsmans resolve in pursuing the
present case for violations allegedly committed by Andutan, the
Court is compelled to uphold the law and dismiss the petition.
ConsistentwithourholdingthatAndutanisno
_______________
53AntonioE.B.Nachura,OutlineReviewerinPoliticalLaw478(2009ed.).See
alsoHectorS.DeLeonandHectorM.DeLeon,Jr.,TheLawonPublicOfficersand
ElectionLaw262(6thed.,2008).
54R.A.3019.Sec.9.Penaltiesforviolations.(a)Anypublicofficerorprivate
personcommittinganyoftheunlawfulactsoromissionsenumeratedinSections3,4,
16/18
11/4/2016
5and6ofthisActshallbepunishedwithimprisonmentfornotlessthanoneyearnor
morethantenyears,perpetualdisqualificationfrompublicoffice,andconfiscationor
forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained
wealthmanifestlyoutofproportiontohissalaryandotherlawfulincome.
558
558
longerthepropersubjectofanadministrativecomplaint,wefindno
reasontodelveontheOmbudsmansfactualfindings.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the Office of the Ombudsmans
petition for review on certiorari, and AFFIRM the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 68893, promulgated on July
28,2004,whichannulledandsetasidetheJuly30,2001decisionof
the Office of the Ombudsman, finding Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr.
guiltyofGrossNeglectofDuty.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), LeonardoDe Castro,** Peralta*** and
Perez,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.
Note.Unlike private offices which are held largely on the
dictates of market forces, public offices are public trust. Public
officers are tasked to serve the public interest, thus the excessive
burdenfortheirretentionintheformofnumerousprohibitions.The
liberalevidentiarystandardofsubstantialevidenceandthefreedom
ofadministrativeproceedingsfromtechnicalnicetieseffectuatethe
fiduciarynatureofpublicoffice.(Mirovs.Dosono,619SCRA653
[2010])
o0o
_______________
**DesignatedasActingMemberoftheSecondDivisionperSpecialOrderNo.
1006datedJune10,2011.
***AdditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeMariaLourdesP.A.Sereno
perSpecialOrderNo.1040datedJuly6,2011.
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
17/18
11/4/2016
18/18

Office of The Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Uldarico P. ANDUTAN, JR., Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

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, Petitioner, vs. Uldarico P. ANDUTAN, JR., Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/4/2016

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. ULDARICO P.

without remedy against Andutan or any public official who committed

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

July 1, 1998. On July 1, 1998, pursuant to the

July 1, 1998. On July 1, 1998, pursuant to the Memorandum,

III.Assuming that the administrative case is not moot, are the

Clearly, Section 20 of R.A. 6770 does not prohibit the

The CA refused to give credence to this argument, holding that

However, the facts of those cases are not entirely applicable to

reason in the Ombudsmans sweeping assertions in light of these

What is clear from the records is that Andutan was forced to

justification to determine whether or not there remains penalties

We rejected Paganos position on the principal ground that the

At the time petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy, petitioner was

may exercise administrative jurisdiction over subordinates ad

You might also like