Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Main Issue:: The BSI Has Direct Supervision Over Its Proceedings. Thus, He Cannot Feign Ignorance
Main Issue:: The BSI Has Direct Supervision Over Its Proceedings. Thus, He Cannot Feign Ignorance
Court of Appeals
465 SCRA 437
G.R. No. 161629 MAIN ISSUE:
July 29, 2005
Whether or not petitioner committed any misconduct, nonfeasance,
Petitioner Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma is the Chairman of the First Division of misfeasance or malfeasance in the performance of his duties
the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). In a
letter-complaint filed by Augusto Somalio with the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau RULING:
(FIIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman, an investigation was requested on alleged anomalies
surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) of two (2) foreign YES. In Arias v. Sandiganbayan, we stated that all heads of offices
nationals. The FIIB investigation revealed seven (7) other cases of TRV extensions tainted have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates. Practicality and efficiency
with similar irregularities. in the conduct of government business dictate that the gritty details be sifted and
reviewed by the time it reaches the final approving authority. In the case at bar, it
As a result, the FIIB, as nominal complainant, filed before the Administrative is not unreasonable for the BOC to rely on the evaluation and recommendation of
Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the Ombudsman a formal complaint against the BSI as it cannot be expected to review every detail of each application
herein petitioner. The complaint was treated as both a criminal and an administrative charge transmitted for its approval. Petitioner being the Chairman of the First Division of
for nine (9) counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and for the BSI has direct supervision over its proceedings. Thus, he cannot feign ignorance
falsification of public documents, and for nine (9) counts of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, or good faith when the irregularities in the TRV extension applications are so
Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Neglect of Duty. patently clear on its face. He is principally accountable for certifying the
regularity and propriety of the applications which he knew were defective.
In a Joint Resolution dated January 22, 1999, Graft Investigation Officer Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, 465 SCRA 437, G.R. No. 161629 July 29, 2005
Marlyn M. Reyes resolved the administrative cases, Where it recommended that Respondent
ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA be SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year for SIDE ISSUE:
Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service.
Whether or not in finding petitioner administratively liable,
On April 13, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of ombudsman has encroached into the power of the Bureau of Immigration over
Appeals, which included a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory immigration matters.
mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order to enjoin public respondents from
implementing the order of suspension. The Court of Appeals issued the TRO on April 19,
2000. RULING:
In its Decision dated August 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed NO. The point of contention is the binding power of any decision or
petitioner's suspension but reduced the period from nine (9) months to six (6) months and order that emanates from the Office of the Ombudsman after it has conducted its
one (1) day without pay. investigation. Under Section 13(3) of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. The
creation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution. The Bagong Kapisanan sa Punta Tenement, Inc. vs. Dolot
Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, are mandated to act promptly on 680 SCRA 164
complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or G.R. No. 179054
of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or September 5, 2012
controlled corporations. Foremost among its powers is the authority to investigate and
prosecute cases involving public officers and employees. Petitioner Punta Tenement is an association formed by the residents
of said tenement in Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila. The controversy stemmed from the
RA 6770 mandated the Ombudsman and his deputies not only to act promptly February 6, 1999 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by Barangay 901 and
on complaints but also to enforce the administrative, civil and criminal liability of Barangay 902, represented by their respective chairmen, Azer E. Dolot (Dolot) and
government officers and employees in every case where the evidence warrants to promote Silverio S. Tañada (Tañada); and Inpart Engineering (Inpart), represented by
efficient service by the Government to the people. The proper interpretation of the Court’s respondent Antonio Benzon (Benzon). Both barangays adopted and approved the
statement in Tapiador should be that the Ombudsman has the authority to determine the said undertaking as reflected in Resolution No. 99-006. The MOA was formulated
administrative liability of a public official or employee at fault, and direct and compel the to address the repair and rehabilitation of the water system of Punta Tenement and
head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty imposed. In other words, it to manage the water distribution in the tenement as well as to handle the payment
merely concerns the procedural aspect of the Ombudsman’s functions and not its jurisdiction of the back accounts of its tenants to Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS).
Aggrieved, the respondents filed their respective motions for reconsideration. In its
October 21, 2005 Order, the Ombudsman denied the said motions.
Undaunted, the respondents appealed the case to the CA via a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
payments to MWSS, nothing in the records would show that they had an
On October 20, 2006, the CA reversed the assailed ruling of the Ombudsman. arrangement to such effect.
Punta Tenement he Ombudsmanmoved for the reconsideration of the said When an individual is found guilty of dishonesty, the
decision the CA, in its Amended Decision, partly granted Punta Tenement's motion for corresponding penalty is dismissal from employment or service. The
reconsideration. The CA ruled that the respondents were indeed remiss in their duties but the underlying reason for this is because when a public official or government
penalty of dismissal from service would be too harsh. It noted that "the collections intended employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such
for Barangays 901 and 902 were spent for noble Barangay projects. officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the
preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in the government. A finding
of dishonesty necessarily carries with it the penalty of dismissal from the
Punta Tenement insists that the CA was not correct in imposing a penalty of office he is holding or serving.
suspension despite its finding that Dolot and Tañada were guilty of dishonesty. It also faults
the CA for absolving the other respondents despite their direct participation in the Furthermore, The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
questionable patubig project. Public Officials and Employees lays down 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
MAIN ISSUE: competence.
1. Whether or not the respondents misfeasance and dishonesty warrants
their dismissal from public office. 2. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in exonerating the rest
of the respondents despite the fact that these respondents have direct and
RULING: continuous participation in the anomalous transaction to date.
RULING:
Yes. The petitioner must be required to pay the contract price since it has accepted the
completed project and enjoyed the benefits thereof. To allow petitioner to acquire the
finished project at no cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the petitioner
to the prejudice of respondent. Such unjust enrichment is not allowed by law