(Ombudsman Vs Valera 471 SCRA 717) : Case Digests
(Ombudsman Vs Valera 471 SCRA 717) : Case Digests
(Ombudsman Vs Valera 471 SCRA 717) : Case Digests
RECITATION 1-23-2017
OSP is merely a component of OMB and may only act under the supervision
and control of OMB (Ombudsman vs Valera 471 SCRA 717)
(Ombudsman vs Valera 471 SCRA 717)
Facts:
OMB received several complaints vs Valera (Deputy Comissioner, Office of the
Revenue Collection Monitoring Group, Bureau of Customs) for violation of RA
3019. OMB Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio, in the administrative case OMB-CA-0379-J, issued the Order placing respondent Valera under preventive
suspension for six months without pay. Petitioner Special Prosecutor VillaIgnacio anchors his authority to conduct the administrative investigation in
OMB-C-A-03-0379-J on the Memorandum dated November 12, 2003 issued by
Ombudsman Marcelo inhibiting himself therefrom and directing petitioner
Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio to act in his place and stead.
Valera filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition as he sought to nullify the Order of preventive suspension. CA held
that Villa-Ignacio is NOT authorized by law to sign and issue preventivesuspension orders since he is neither the Ombudsman nor one of the Deputy
Ombudsmen based on the ff laws:
Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman
Act of 1989, which vests on the Ombudsman and his Deputy the
power to preventively suspend any government officer or employee
under the Ombudsmans authority pending investigation subject to
certain conditions. In relation thereto,
Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution stating that the Office of the
Ombudsman is composed of the Ombudsman to be known as the
Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy, and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military
establishment may likewise be appointed.
As to the delegation by OMB Marcelo, CA said: the Ombudsman, in
issuing that kind of a memorandum, has, wittingly or unwittingly,
permitted the Office of the Special Prosecutor to perform the
administrative adjudicative powers of the Ombudsman not only to
issue preventive suspension but to perform, without qualification,
any and all other administrative adjudicative powers, duties
functions and responsibilities pertaining to the former as provided
under R.A. No. 6770 and the Constitution.
ISSUE: whether petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio has the authority to
place respondent Valera under preventive suspension in connection with the
administrative case OMB-C-A-03-0379-J pending before the Office of the
Ombudsman? NO.
HELD:
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IS MERELY A COMPONENT OF THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND MAY ONLY ACT UNDER THE SUPERVISION
AND CONTROL AND UPON AUTHORITY OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Section 38(1),
Chapter 7, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines supervision and
control thus:
(1) Supervision and Control. Supervision and control shall include authority to
act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a
subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts;
review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or
units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and programs; and prescribe
standards, guidelines, plans and programs. Unless a different meaning is
explicitly provided in the specific law governing the relationship of particular
agencies, the word control shall encompass supervision and control as defined
in this paragraph.
Digests
The power of supervision and control has been likewise explained as follows: In
administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of
an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail
or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed
by law to make them perform such duties. Control, on the other hand, means the
power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment
of the former for that of the latter.
Pursuant to its power of supervision and control, the Office of the Ombudsman
is empowered under Section 15(10) of R.A. No. 6770 to:
(10) Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigators or representatives such
authority or duty as shall ensure the effective exercise or performance of the
powers, functions, and duties herein or hereinafter provided;
Complementary thereto, Section 11(4)(c) thereof requires the latter to: (c)
[p]erform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman. Hence, under the
foregoing provisions, the Ombudsman may delegate his investigatory function,
including the power to conduct administrative investigation, to the Special
Prosecutor.
SECTION 24 OF R.A. NO 6770, HOWEVER, GRANTS THE POWER TO
PREVENTIVELY SUSPEND ONLY TO THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE DEPUTY
OMBUDSMEN. It is observed that R.A. No. 6770 has invariably mentioned the
Special Prosecutor alongside the Ombudsman and/or the Deputy Ombudsmen
with respect to the manner of appointment,[34] qualifications,[35] term of
office,grounds for removal from office,[37] prohibitions and disqualifications[38]
and disclosure of relationship requirement.[39] However, with respect to the
grant of the power to preventively suspend, Section 24 of R.A. No 6770 makes
no mention of the Special Prosecutor. The obvious import of this exclusion is to
withhold from the Special Prosecutor the power to preventively suspend. It is a
basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person,
thing, act or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim
expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Anyone can train to be a gladiator. What marks you out is having the mindset of a champion
. Manu Bennett
Page1
KC Case
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
RSP has administrative supervision, not control, over CPs and PPs (RSP
Aurillo vs Rabi, 392 SCRA 604).
ISSUE: Is Aurillo empowered to motu proprio take over and conduct a preliminary
investigation of I.S No. 95-043, after the inquest investigation thereof had
already been terminated and approved by city prosecutor? No.
HELD:
Aurillo acted without authority and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction when he took over motu proprio the PI of I.S. No.
95-043 and ordered a new PI thereof; hence, his actuations were a nullity.
Aurillos reliance on Section 8, paragraph (b) of PD 1275 is misplaced. Said law
provides that a RSP exercises immediate administrative supervision over all
provincial and city fiscals and other prosecuting officers of provinces and cities
comprised within his region and prosecutes any case arising within his region. [16]
Digests
Anyone can train to be a gladiator. What marks you out is having the mindset of a champion
. Manu Bennett
Page2
KC Case
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
FACTS: Polo Coconut Plantation Co Inc (PCPI) sought to convert Polo Estate into
a special economic zone. It applied for the reclassification of its agrilands to
mixed residential, commercial, and industrial lands. Subsequently, DAR through
PARO notified PCPI that a portion of the Polo Estate had been placed under
CARP and a new title was then issued in favor of the beneficiaries. PCPI filed
with the CA a petition for certiorari asserting that DAR acted with GAOD in
placing the Polo estate under CARP asserting that the estate was previously
reclassified as no longer agriland. In their favor, CA found that the Polo estate
was no longer agricultural land when the DAR placed it under the CARP
ISSUE: W/N Recourse to court action is ripe to prosper? No.
HELD: Recourse to court action will not prosper until all remedies have been
exhausted at the administrative level. Protests regarding the implementation of
the CARP fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. He
determines whether a tract of land is covered by or exempt from CARP.[20]
Likewise, questions regarding the eligibility of CARP beneficiaries must be
addressed to him. The DAR Secretary decides to whom lands placed under the
CARP shall be distributed.[21]
Before PCPCI filed its petition for certiorari in the CA, it did not file a protest or
opposition questioning the propriety of subjecting the Polo estate to the CARP.
Neither did it assail the eligibility of petitioners-beneficiaries before the DAR
Secretary. There were available administrative remedies under the DARAB Rules
but PCPCI did not avail of them.
Moreover, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
can be availed of only in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[22] Here, recourse to the DAR
Secretary was the plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law contemplated by Rule 65.
The complaint of Senior Engr. Ortizo for prohibition and injunction should
have been dismissed. He should appeal the reassignment order of RM to
the NIA Administrator and if necessary, to CSC (Corsiga vs Defensor, 391
SCRA 274)
Digests
Anyone can train to be a gladiator. What marks you out is having the mindset of a champion
. Manu Bennett
Page3
KC Case
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
KC Case
which private respondent failed to substantiate. Official functions are presumed
to be regular unless proven otherwise.[20]
Lastly, private respondent claimed urgency in that he had no other recourse but
to go to court, or he would be charged administratively. However, under Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law, a recourse is available to him by way
of appeal which could be brought to the agency head, with further recourse, if
needed, to the Civil Service Commission. Worth noting, the possibility of an
administrative charge was only speculative on the part of private respondent,
who could avail of administrative remedies already cited.
In sum, Civil Case No. 22462 is not an exception to the general rule on exhaustion
of administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals, in our view, committed
reversible error in finding that the trial court did not err nor gravely abused its
discretion for taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462.
Digests
Anyone can train to be a gladiator. What marks you out is having the mindset of a champion
Page4
This case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to this rule.
Although the Order of the NTC dated May 3, 2000 granting provisional authority
to Bayantel was immediately executory, it did not preclude the filing of a motion
. Manu Bennett