Jarque vs.

Desierto

“Impeachable officers who are members of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached.”

There is a fundamental procedural requirement which must be observed before liability for criminal acts
or for violation of the CPR may be determined and enforced. Should the tenure of the impeachable
officer such as the Ombudsman be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer
either criminally or administratively for any wrong or misbehavior which may be proven against him in
appropriate proceedings.

Francisco vs HOR

“No impeachment proceedigs shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period
of one year.”

The term ‘to initiate’ refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress’ taking
initial action of said complaint.

Initiation takes place by the (1) act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment
complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, (2) by the filing by at least 1/3 of the members
of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House. Once an impeachment
complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the
same official within a one-year period.

An impeachment proceeding would be considered as “initiated” upon the filing and endorsement even
of a baseless impeachment complaint, or one which would not be in conformity with the Rules on
Impeachment of the House of Representatives. Upon its filing and referral to the appropriate house
committee, no other impeachment complaint may be filed against the same official within a period of
one year.

Binay vs. Sandiganbayan

The Constitution states that in providing for the standardization of compensation of government
officials and employees, Congress shall take into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to,
and the qualifications required for their positions. Differences in pay are to be based upon substantive
differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions. In short, the
nature of an official position should be the determining factor in the fixing of his or her salary.

The grade, therefore, depends upon the nature of one’s position -- the level of difficulty, responsibilities,
and qualification requirements thereof -- relative to that of another position. It is the officials Grade
that determines his or her salary, not the other way around.

It is possible that a local government official’s salary may be less than that prescribed for his Grade since
his salary depends also on the class and financial capability of his or her respective local government
unit. Nevertheless, it is the law which fixes the officials grade.
To determine whether an official is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
reference should be made to R.A. No. 6758 and the Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and
Salary Grades. Salary level is not determinative. An officials grade is not a matter of proof, but a matter
of law of which the Court must take judicial notice. Petitioner mayors are local officials classified as
Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, under the catchall
provision, Section 4a (5) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975. More accurately, petitioner
mayors are officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989, under Section 4a (1) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975.

Orap vs. Sandiganbayan

**municipal judge; corruption

The Tanodbayan functions not only as an ombudsman, but as prosecutor as well.

Insofar as administrative complaints are concerned, the Courts, judges and their appurtenant judicial
staff are outside the Tanodbayan's investigatory power. The reason for such exclusion is that the
Supreme Court that exercises administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel and,
therefore, is the proper forum to which administrative complaints involving judges and the court's
personnel should be lodged.

As prosecutor, however, the authority of the Tanodbayan is plenary and without exceptions.

The Ombudsman can conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute criminal cases involving not only
public officers and employees who fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those
subject to the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.

Buenaseda vs. Flavier

*preventive suspension; Suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation

**whether the Ombudsman has the power to suspend government officials and employees working in
offices other than the Office of the Ombudsman, pending the investigation of the administrative
complaints filed against said officials and employees.

When the constitution vested on the Ombudsman the power "to recommend the suspension" of a
public official or employees (Sec. 13 [3]), it referred to "suspension," as a punitive measure. Section 24
of R.A. No. 6770, which grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend public officials and
employees facing administrative charges before him, is a procedural, not a penal statute. The preventive
suspension is imposed after compliance with the requisites therein set forth, as an aid in the
investigation of the administrative charge.

Congress intended to empower the Ombudsman to preventively suspend all officials and employees
under investigation by his office, irrespective of whether they are employed "in his office" or in other
offices of the government. The moment a criminal or administrative complaint is filed with the
Ombudsman, the respondent therein is deemed to be "in his authority" and he can proceed to
determine whether said respondent should be placed under preventive suspension.

Being a mere order for preventive suspension, the questioned order of the Ombudsman was validly
issued even without a full-blown hearing and the formal presentation of evidence by the parties.

PDIC vs. Casimiro

*BSP; receiver; advance warning of examination of books

Court's noninterference in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause,
provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. It is based not only on respect for the
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but
upon practicality as well.

The conduct of preliminary investigation proceedings - whether by the Ombudsman or by a public

prosecutor - is geared only to determine whether or not probable cause exists to hold an accused-
respondent for trial for the supposed crime that he committed. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing
a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. Hearsay evidence is
admissible in determining probable cause in preliminary investigations because such investigation is
merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. Being merely based
on opinion and belief, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is
sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

AMIT vs. COA

**ghost projects and misappropriation/falsification; independent judgment; misconduct

Public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice and lead modest lives

Amit has the duty to supervise his subordinates he must see to it that his subordinates have performed
their functions in accordance with the law. he is precisely duty-bound to check whether these acts are
regular, lawful and valid, and his full reliance on the acts of his subordinates is antithetical to the duties
imposed by his position on them.

Misconduct warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected
with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office.

Inability to live up to the standards so imposed on him in the performance of his duties is misconduct.

SEVILLE vs. COA

** ghost projects/’don’t blame me’; signed the disbursement voucher without physical inspection of the
project; substitute

In the discharge of duties, a public officer must use prudence, caution, and attention which careful
persons use in the management of their affairs. Public servants must show at all times utmost
dedication to duty.

While Seville merely substituted for the absent superior at that time, it is not an excuse for lightly
shirking from the latter’s duties and responsibilities. It was her responsibility when she signed that
disbursement voucher to verify the accuracy and completeness of the supporting documents presented
to her

Liable for the lesser offense of simple misconduct since she should have exercised the necessary
prudence to ensure that the proper procedure was complied with in the release of government funds.

Gutierrez vs. HOR

“An impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense.” Multiple complaints may
be considered so long as they would all be simultaneously referred or endorsed to the proper
Committee of the HOR and would lead to only one impeachment proceeding.

Impeachment is not a judicial proceeding but rather a political exercise. She thus cannot demand that
the Court apply the stringent standards it asks of justices and judges when it comes to inhibition from
hearing cases. Incidentally, the Impeachment Rules do not provide for any provision regarding the
inhibition of the Committee chairperson or any member from participating in an impeachment
proceeding.

Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan

**overpricing onion skin paper

Suspension is mere “preventive measure” that arises from the legal presumption that unless the
accused is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do
both, in the same way upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, the law required that judge to issue a
warrant for the arrest of the accused.

The law does not require the court to determine whether the accused is likely to escape or evade the
jurisdiction of the court.

Fajardo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

*''threefold liability rule," any act or omission of any public official or employee can result in criminal,
civil, or administrative liability, each of which is independent of the other; NAIA Collector unremitted
collection
Unlike in a criminal case where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, administrative proceedings
only require substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.

The Ombudsman and the CA are not bound by the RTC's finding because as a rule, administrative cases
are independent from criminal proceedings. The dismissal of one case does not necessarily merit the
dismissal of the other.

Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman in dismissing him from service disregarded Section 13 Article
XI of the Constitution as well as RA No. 6770 which only vests in the Ombudsman the power to
recommend the removal of a public official or employee

The contention is bereft with merit, "the power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose
administrative liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory."

DIAZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

**shortage in the collection; liquidation vs. restitution

Liquidation of cash item means the validation of the transaction, while restitution means that the
accountable officer had to dig from her private resources to cover the amount involved.

Factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court but there are established
exceptions to that rule, such as, sans preclusion, when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely
on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a
mistake; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
and (5) the findings of fact are premised on a want of evidence are contradicted by evidence on record.

Imperative it is that sufficient time be given examined officers to reconstruct their accounts and refute
the charge that they had put government funds to their personal uses. If funds or property entrusted to
a public officer were validly used for public purposes he should not be held liable for malversation.
[audit was not conducted with sufficient thoroughness].

LEDESMA vs. CA

**extension of visas to 2 foreigners

Petitioner submits that the Ombudsmans findings that the TRV applications were illegal constitutes an
indirect interference by the Ombudsman into the powers of the BOC over immigration matters.

The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, are mandated to 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.

His authority under Sec.13 (3) of Art. XI to 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 is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory
within the bounds of the law.

BAGONG KAPISANAN vs. DOLOT

*patubig ni chairman; accountability; nonfeasance

Failure to demand accountability to ensure that payments were properly documented and remitted.
Their inaction demonstrated a lack of concern for the welfare of their constituents. They reneged on
their sworn duty to be true to their constituents.

Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the
integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.

When a public official or government 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
public’s faith and confidence in the government.

The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects
on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the
service. The state policy to promote a high standard of ethics in public service, and enjoins public
officials and employees to discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity and competence.

Public officials are expected to exhibit the highest degree of dedication in deference to their duty of
accountability to the people. To allow them to remain as accountable public officers, despite their
questionable acts, would be rewarding them for their misdeed.

CORONA vs. SENATE

*failure to disclose to the public his SALN (culpable violation of the Constitution and as a betrayal of
public trust)

Impeachment is the method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. It is a formal process
whereby an official is charged and tried and if convicted, removed from office, it’s the “power of
Congress to remove a public official for serious crimes or misconduct as provided in the Constitution.”

Most formidable weapon in the arsenal of democracy.

Allegations: “ethical blindness, introduction of political partisanship at the expense of due process and
intrigue into the court at the expense of the reputation of his fellow justices, his undermining basic and
cherished principles of intellectual, financial and ethical honesty by using his powers not to arrive at the
truth or hold the court to the highest standards but instead to cover up and excuse the shortcomings of
the court has betrayed public trust by eroding public confidence in the administration of justice.”

MONTALLANA vs. OMBUDSMAN

**hotel wiring system, licensing operation; command responsibility;

Gross neglect (negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected.)

Petitioner, being the Chief thereat, should have taken initiatives to secure a copy for his file to aid him in
determining the veracity of the reports submitted to him by his subordinates.

The purpose of administrative proceedings is mainly to protect the public service, based on the time-
honored principle that a public office is a public trust.

As a public servant, petitioner is tasked to provide efficient, competent, and proper service to the public.
Public officials and employees are under obligation to perform the duties of their offices honestly,
faithfully, and to the best of their ability. Petitioner miserably failed to perform his duties as a public
servant.

GONZALES vs. OP

*Manila hostage taking; administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the President of the Ombudsman;
principle of independence of the office of the Ombudsman

Whether a Deputy Ombudsman may be subjected to the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the
President.

Subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the President, whose own alter egos
and officials in the Executive Department are subject to the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, cannot
but seriously place at risk the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman itself.

The Executive power to remove and discipline key officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, or to
exercise any power over them, would result in an absurd situation wherein the Office of the
Ombudsman is given the duty to adjudicate on the integrity and competence of the very persons who
can remove or suspend its members.

Section 2, Article XI is to prevent Congress from extending the more stringent rule of "removal only by
impeachment" to favored public officers. Impeachment is the most difficult and cumbersome mode of
removing a public officer from office. It is, by its nature, a sui generis politico-legal process that signals
the need for a judicious and careful handling as shown by the process required to initiate the
proceeding.

Special Prosecutor is by no means an ordinary subordinate but one who effectively and directly aids the
Ombudsman in the exercise of his/her duties, which include investigation and prosecution of officials in
the Executive Department. Subjecting the Special Prosecutor to disciplinary and removal powers of the
President, whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive Department are subject to the
prosecutorial authority of the Special Prosecutor, would seriously place the independence of the Office
of the Ombudsman itself at risk.

What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally true, not only for her Deputies but, also for other
lesser officials of that Office who act directly as agents of the Ombudsman herself in the performance of
her duties.
The Court did not consider the Office of the Special Prosecutor to be constitutionally within the Office of
the Ombudsman and is, hence, not entitled to the independence the latter enjoys under the
Constitution. Only with respect to the disciplinary measures that may only be undertaken by the
Ombudsman not the OP.