Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, finding no merit to [petitioners'] OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS, the same is hereby DENIED and petitioners are hereby ordered to submit their answer within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [6] xxx xxx xxx Petitioners appealed the order to the Ombudsman. There, they raised the same issues. Treating the appeal as a motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman dismissed it on February 22, 1996.
WHEREFORE, finding no merit to [petitioners'] OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS, the same is hereby DENIED and petitioners are hereby ordered to submit their answer within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [6] xxx xxx xxx Petitioners appealed the order to the Ombudsman. There, they raised the same issues. Treating the appeal as a motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman dismissed it on February 22, 1996. He held that petitioners were officers of a GOCC, hence, he had jurisdiction over them. [7] He also affirmed the Deputy Ombudsman's ruling that Quimpo was applicable to petitioners' case. In this petition for certiorari, with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order, petitioners assail the orders dated July 13, 1989 and February 22, 1996 of the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) and the Ombudsman, respectively. They claim that public respondents acted without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the investigation of the case against them although they were officers of a private corporation and not "public officers." [8] In support of their petition, petitioners argue that: (1) the Ombudsman's jurisdiction only covers GOCCs with original charters and these do not include PAL, a private entity created under the general corporation law; (2) Quimpo does not apply to the case at bar and (3) RA 3019 only concerns "public officers," thus, they cannot be investigated or prosecuted under that law. We find merit in petitioners' arguments and hold that public respondents do not have the authority to prosecute them for violation of RA 3019. JURISDICTION OF THE OMBUDSMAN OVER GOCCS IS CONFINED ONLY TO THOSE WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS The 1987 Constitution states the powers and functions of the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically, Article XI, Section 13(2) provides: Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: xxx xxx xxx (2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter , to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties. (italics supplied) xxx xxx xxx Based on the foregoing provision, the Office of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public officials/ employees of GOCCs with original charters . This being so, it can only investigate and prosecute acts or omissions of the officials/employees of government corporations. Therefore, although the government later on acquired the controlling interest in PAL, the fact remains that the latter did not have an "original charter" and its officers/employees could not be investigated and/or prosecuted by the Ombudsman. In Juco v. National Labor Relations Commission, [9] we ruled that the phrase "with original charter" means "chartered by special law as distinguished fr
G.R. No. 193964 -
G.R. No. 193964 -
CaseG.R. No. 201800 - GOVERNOR MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, V. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES AND SANTIAGO RESPICIO.
G.R. No. 201800 -
CaseG.R. No. 229288 - SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN, V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
G.R. No. 229288 -