22.0 Cesa v. OMB
FACTS: The Office of the Ombudsman suspendedthe
petitioner-treasurer for six months without pay for tolerating
illegal practices relative to the granting of cash advances to
paymasters. The petitioner argued in his petition for review that
the Ombudsman had no power to directly suspend him and that there
was no legal and factual basis to suspend him.
ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman has the power to remove an erring
public official from government service.
RULING: Yes. Under Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the
Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from
government service an erring public official other than a member of
Congress and the Judiciary, which means that the recommendation is
not merely advisory but mandatory.
22.1 OMB v. De Sahagun
FACTS: Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) filed criminal
and administrative charges against respondents for failing to go
through the required procedure for public bidding and grave
misconduct, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and gross violation of Rules and Regulations. The CA held
that the nature of the function of theOmbudsmanwas purely
recommendatory and it did not have the power to penalize erring
government officials and employees.
ISSUE: Whether theOmbudsmanonly has recommendatory, not
punitive, powers against erring government officials and
employees.
RULING: Yes. It is already well-settled that the Ombudsmans
power as regards the administrative penalty to be imposed on an
erring public officer or employee is not merely recommendatory. The
Ombudsman has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of a public
officer of employee other than a member of Congress and the
Judiciary, found to be at fault.
22.2 OMB v. Samaniego
FACTS: Respondent has allegedly incurred shortages in his
accountabilities. He was meted the penalty of one year suspension
from office by the Ombudsman. However, CA granted the respondents
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction. OMB
filed a motion for intervention and a motion to recall the writ of
preliminary injunction, but were both denied. The OMB claims that
CA erred in denying its right to intervene.
ISSUE: Whether the OMB has the authority to intervene.
RULING: Yes. To aid the Ombudsman in carrying out its tasks, it
was vested with disciplinary authority over government officials.
The Office of the Ombudsman is vested with full administrative
disciplinary authority including the power to determine appropriate
penalty imposable on erring public impose the said penalty.
