G.R. No. 155749 - ERLINDA F. SANTOS, VS. MA. CAREST A. RASALAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent be held GUILTY as charged, with a mitigating penalty of SUSPENSION FROM THE SERVICE for SEVEN (7) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY. It is hereby ordered that the Chief of Tondo Medical Center should carry out the implementation of the suspension from the service of respondent Erlinda F. Santos, Staff Nurse of the said hospital, informing this Office of the action taken thereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [4] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in an Order [5] dated May 10, 2000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman. On October 17, 2002, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. [6] Forthwith, petitioner filed the instant petition alleging that: (1) the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over respondent's administrative complaint considering that the acts complained of are not work-related and are purely personal between the parties; and (2) the facts do not establish the charge against her. For her part, respondent prays that the petition be denied for lack of merit. The petition is bereft of merit. The authority of the Ombudsman to act on respondent's administrative complaint is anchored on Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee , office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient . x x x (Underscoring supplied) Section 19 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, [7] likewise provides: SEC. 19. Administrative Complaints. - The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which: (1) Are contrary to law or regulation; (2) Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory; (3) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions, though in accordance with law; (4) Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts; (5) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or (6) Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification . (Underscoring supplied) The Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals found that the acts committed by petitioner as a public employee are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, irregular, immoral and devoid of justification, thus falling within the purview of the above-quoted constitutional and statutory provisions. We find no cogent reason to deviate from their findings. Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 6770, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during his/her tenure of office, thus: SEC. 16.