Ledesma vs.

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).

Punta Tenement filed a complaint for dishonesty and corruption

before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) against their barangay
chairmen, Dolot and Tañada; and Benzon and other barangay kagawads.
Punta Tenement alleged that the respondents conspired to defraud the tenants by not
remitting to MWSS the agreed barangay share of P0.125 or 50% of P0.25 per 20
liter-container from the cost of water collection paid by the tenement residents
which was intended to pay the back account with MWSS as instructed by the
MOA.
The Ombudsman rendered a decision finding all the respondents
guilty of dishonesty and imposing upon them the penalty of dismissal from the
service. The Ombudsman found that Inpart was already reneging on its MOA
obligation as early as 1999, but the respondents failed to act on the problem.

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.

YES. Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative RULING:

Cases in the Civil Service classifies dishonesty as a grave offense punishable with
dismissal from the service even for the first offense. In the case at bench, the As to the other respondents, the Court affirms the dismissal of
supposed acts of dishonesty by Dolot and Tañada were convincingly established. the complaint against them for lack of evidence proving, even in the slightest
Based on the contract, both barangays were to receive P0.25/20 liter as their share in degree, that they had a direct hand in the mishandling of the tenement’s
the water distribution arrangement. From the said amount, 50% was allocated for the patubig project. They merely signed the resolution approving the MOA in
payment of back account with MWSS, while the remaining 50% was earmarked to their capacities as barangay kagawads, a laudable remedy to alleviate the
their other barangay-related projects. The provision was very clear and categorical. plight of the members of the Punta Tenement.
Inpart was never tasked to pay the barangays’ back account as the money allocated for
payment was agreed to be deducted from the barangays’ share. Apart from the self-
serving declaration of Dolot and Tañada that it was Inpart’s obligation to remit
SIDE ISSUE/S:
Dishonesty Defined: Corona vs. Senate of the Philippines
Dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; 676 SCRA 563
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of G.R. No. 200242
fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.
July 17, 2012
Substantial Evidence Defined:
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion Before this Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
prayer for immediate issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of
Conclusive Finding/s preliminary injunction filed by the former Chief Justice of this Court, Renato C.
The Court agrees with the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA that Dolot Corona, assailing the... impeachment case initiated by the respondent Members of
and Tañada were guilty of dishonesty. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of the the House of Representatives (HOR) and trial being conducted by respondent
Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due Senate of the Philippines.
respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA. It is not the task of this On December 12, 2011, a caucus was held by the majority bloc of
Court to analyze and weigh the parties’ evidence all over again except when there is serious the HOR during which a verified complaint for impeachment against petitioner was
ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result. Although there submitted by the leadership of the Committee on Justice. After a brief presentation,
are exceptions to this rule, the Court finds none in this case. on the same day, the complaint was voted in... session and 188 Members signed and
Quantum of Proof endorsed it, way above the one-third vote required by the Constitution.
In administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required to support any On December 15, 2011, petitioner received a copy of the complaint
findings. Evidently, the circumstances of the case all point to the inexcusable misfeasance of charging him with culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust
Dolot and Tañada. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability and graft and corruption,... THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BY
to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or PARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO
employee. ADMINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE AND UNTIL HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A
MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE TO THEPRESENT FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO
THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH
AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
Petitioner argued at length that the acts,... misdeeds or offenses
imputed to him were either false or baseless, and otherwise not illegal nor improper.
He prayed for the outright dismissal of the complaint for failing to meet the
requirements of the Constitution or that the Impeachment Court enter a judgment of
acquittal... for all the articles of impeachment. democracy,” was foreseen as creating divisions, partialities and enmities, or
highlighting pre-existing factions with the greatest danger that “the decision will be
In compliance with the directive of the Impeachment Court, the prosecution
regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real
and defense submitted their respective memoranda on the question of whether the
demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Given their concededly political character,
prosecution may present evidence to prove the allegations in paragraphs 2.3 (failure to report
the precise role of the judiciary in impeachment cases is a matter of utmost
some properties in SALN) and 2.4 (acquisition of ill-gotten wealth and failure to disclose in
importance to ensure the effective functioning of the separate branches while
SALN such bank accounts with huge deposits and 300-sq.m. Megaworld property at the Fort
preserving the structure of checks and balance in our government. Moreover, in this
in Taguig) under Article II (par. 2.2. refers to petitioner's alleged failure to disclose to the
jurisdiction, the acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government, including
public his SALN as required... by the Constitution).
those traditionally entrusted to the political departments, are proper subjects of
Impeachment Court granted the prosecution's request for subpoena directed to judicial review if tainted with grave abuse or arbitrariness.
the officers of two private banks where petitioner allegedly deposited millions in peso and
SIDE ISSUE:
dollar currencies.
Mootness
In the meantime, the impeachment trial had been concluded with the
ISSUE:
conviction of petitioner by more than the required majority vote of the Senator-
Whether the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to assail Judges. Petitioner immediately accepted the verdict and without any protest
matters or incidents arising from impeachment proceedings. vacated his office. In fact, the Judicial and Bar Council is already in the process of
screening applicants and nominees, and the President of the Philippines is expected
to appoint a new Chief Justice within the prescribed 90-day period from among
RULING: those candidates shortlisted by the JBC. Unarguably, the constitutional issue raised
YES. In the case of Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol by petitioner had been mooted by supervening events and his own acts.
ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of judicial An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to
review in this jurisdiction includes the power of review over justiciable issues in present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without
impeachment proceedings. Subsequently, in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which
Committee on Justice, the Court resolved the question of the validity of the simultaneous the petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of
referral of two impeachment complaints against petitioner Ombudsman which was allegedly the petition.
a violation of the due process clause and of the one year bar provision.
On the basis of these precedents, petitioner asks this Court to determine
whether respondents committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely abused its
discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives that could translate as lack
or excess of jurisdiction, which would require corrective measures from the Court.
Impeachment, described as “the most formidable weapon in the arsenal of
 Montallana vs. Office of the Ombudsman
678 SCRA 488
G.R. No. 179677 Not satisfied, petitioner sought recourse before the CA. On May 28, 2007, the CA
rendered a Decision denying the petition.
August 15, 2012
In ruling against petitioner, the CA ratiocinated that between
petitioner’s unsubstantiated denials of the irregularities made in the electrical
In the early hours of August 18, 2001, fire struck and engulfed the Manor inspection of the Manor Hotel and the categorical findings of the investigators,
Hotel in Kamias Road, Quezon City, claiming the lives of seventy-four people and seriously there is no room for a contrary conclusion that petitioner is indeed administratively
injuring several others. To determine the officials and persons responsible for this tragedy, an liable for his negligence. The CA held that petitioner cannot attribute the fault to his
investigation was conducted by the Fact-Finding & Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office subordinates. As head of office and the final approving authority of the Electrical
of the Ombudsman (OMB). The FFIB found that the fire that consumed the Manor Hotel Division, it behooves petitioner to see to it that his subordinate engineers and
was attributable to the hotel’s faulty electrical wiring systems. It concluded that, had it not inspectors are performing their respective duties effectively. Petitioner should have
been for the gross negligence of the public officials of the local government of Quezon City, made appropriate measures that can verify the veracity of their reports.
who were in charge in the licensing operations of the Manor Hotel, the incident would not
have happened.
ISSUE:
On June 17, 2003, the Investigating Panel of the OMB rendered a Decision7
finding petitioner liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Gross Whether or not petitioner could be held administratively liable based
Neglect of Duty and meted upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its on the principle of command responsibility.
accessory penalties.
On July 26, 2004, the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the OMB issued a RULING:
Memorandum9 which modified the Joint Decision insofar as petitioner and the other
respondents are concerned. In the said Memorandum, petitioner was also found guilty of YES. This Court has held in several cases that in the absence of
gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It was also stated substantial evidence of gross negligence of the petitioner, administrative liability
therein that since petitioner was already separated from the service due to his retirement, the could not be based on the principle of command responsibility. However, in the
benefits he received by virtue thereof must be returned to the government as declared in the case at bar, the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the CA,
Affidavit of Undertaking which he executed before his retirement. The said Memorandum clearly establish the negligence of petitioner in the performance of his duties as
was approved by then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo on November 26, 2004. head of the Electrical Division. Thus, it was incumbent on petitioner as head of the
Electrical Division to see to it that proper annual inspections are conducted on the
existing electrical installations in Quezon City. Records would disclose that the
_______________ charges against petitioner were supported by the evidence on record.
 This Court has time and again refrained from interfering with the Republic Vs. Lacap
Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory
powers. This is in recognition of the Office of the Ombudsman’s independence and initiative
in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it.30 More so, in the case at bar, where The District Engineer of Pampanga, issued and duly published an
the CA affirmed the factual findings and conclusion of the Office of the Ombudsman. “invitation to bid”, where Lacap was awarded as the lowest bidder. Accordingly, the
Although there are exceptions to this rule, none of which exists in the present case. latter undertook the works, made advances for the purchase of materials and
payment for labor costs.
Public Office is a Public Trust
On October 29, 1992 the office of the DE issued Certification of
The purpose of administrative proceedings is mainly to protect the public Final Inspection and Acceptance for100% completion of project in accordance with
service, based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. From the specifications. The respondent sought to collect payment but Department of Public
foregoing, petitioner’s negligence in the performance of his duties as a public servant was Works and Highways withheld payment after the District Auditor of Commission
well established. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding on Audit disapproved final release of funds on the ground that contractor’s license
of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind had expired.
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Opinion of the DPWH Legal Department was sought by the District
It is worth to reiterate that a public office is a public trust. Public officers and Engineer. The former then responded that RA No. 4566 does not provide that a
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost contract entered into after the license has expired is void and that there is no law
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead which expressly prohibits such a contract void. Furthermore, Cesar D. Mejia,
modest lives.31 As a public servant, petitioner is tasked to provide efficient, competent, and Director III of the Legal Department in a First Indorsement, recommended the
proper service to the public. Public officials and employees are under obligation to perform payment should be made to Carwin Construction. However, no payment was made.
the duties of their offices honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their ability. In the case at On July 3, 1995, respondent filed the complaint through Office of the Solicitor
bar, petitioner miserably failed to perform his duties as a public servant. General for Specific Performance and Damages against petitioner before the RTC.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE DEFINED: Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on September 14, 1995 on the
grounds that complaint states no cause of action and RTC had no jurisdiction since
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized
respondent did not appeal to COA. RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss.
by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty
to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was likewise
consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which denied by RTC, in its order on May 23, 1996. On August 5, 1996, the OSG filed its
even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. In cases Answer invoking defense of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and
involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and doctrine of non-suability of the State.
palpable. Following the trial, the RTC rendered on February 19, 1997 its
decision ordering the DPWH to pay the contract price plus interest at 12% from
demand until fully paid and the costs of the suit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a contractor with an expired license at the time of execution of
its contract is entitled to be paid for completed projects?

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