G.R. NO. 167844 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND LOREÑA L. SANTOS. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, should be penalized with suspension from office for six (6) months without pay. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is partially GRANTED, and the assailed Order [dated 25 March 2003] of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), Cebu City, in administrative case OMB-VIS-ADM-2001-0412, [is] NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. And the assailed Decision [dated 28 October 2002] is hereby MODIFIED in that petitioner is hereby found guilty of NEGLECT OF DUTY and thus meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE for SIX (6) MONTHS without pay which imposable penalty is hereby DECLARED only recommendatory and should be directed to the proper officer or authority concerned, in the Land Transportation Franchis[ing] and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), for its enforcement and implementation. No pronouncement as to costs. [4] (Emphasis in the original) The Office of the Ombudsman ("petitioner") sought intervention in the Court of Appeals and moved for reconsideration of that portion of the Court of Appeals' ruling finding petitioner without power to impose sanctions in cases falling under its disciplinary authority. In its Resolution dated 12 April 2005, the Court of Appeals granted petitioner's request for intervention but denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. Petitioner questions the Court of Appeals' ruling depriving it of the power to impose penalties in administrative cases under its jurisdiction. Petitioner contends that under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (RA 6770), [5] it has "full and complete administrative and disciplinary power and duty," including the power to impose penalties. Petitioner prays for a reversal of the Court of Appeals' ruling. The Issues The petition raises the following issues: (1) Whether petitioner has the power to impose penalties in administrative cases under its jurisdiction, and, if so, (2) Whether petitioner correctly imposed on respondent the penalty of dismissal from service. The Ruling of the Court The petition has merit. Petitioner has the Power to Impose, and not only Recommend, Penalties in Administrative Cases The Court of Appeals ruled that in administrative cases against officials subject to petitioner's disciplinary authority, [6] petitioner could only recommend but not impose penalties. The Court of Appeals based its ruling on a literal interpretation of Section 13 (3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: x x x x (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. Section 15 (3) of RA 6770 substantially reiterates this constitutional provision, thus: Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties: x x x x (3) Direct the officer concerned to t