OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v.

SAMANIEGO 2008 His prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary

injunction was granted.
FACTS:
the Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for
Respondent Joel S. Samaniego was the City Treasurer intervention and to admit the attached motion to
of Ligao City, Albay. On separate dates, the recall the writ of preliminary injunction. The motions
Commission on Audit (COA) through its Regional were denied.
Cluster Director Atty. Francisco R. Velasco1[3] filed
two The Office of the Ombudsman now claims that the CA
erred in denying its right to intervene, considering
administrative complaints against Samaniego, that its joint decision was the subject of the appeal. It
docketed as OMB-L-A-03-1060-K2[4] and OMB-L-A- also asserts that the writ of preliminary injunction
03-1061-K,3[5] for dishonesty and grave misconduct. should be recalled.
In these administrative complaints, the COA alleged We rule for the Office of the Ombudsman.
that respondent incurred shortages in his
accountabilities for two separate periods.4[6] ISSUE: WON CA erred in denying its (Office of the
Respondent received letters of demand requiring him Ombudsman) right to intervene
to explain his side and settle his accountabilities.
HELD:
In his counter-affidavit, respondent averred, among
others, that OMB-L-A-03-1060-K was bereft of factual The CA denied petitioner’s motion for
intervention for lack of basis, reasoning that:
basis. He likewise averred that the alleged amount of
his accountability in OMB-L-A-03-1061-K was the In the instant case, the Ombudsman’s
same amount cited in OMB-L-A-03-1060-K. He also intervention is not proper considering that, other
pleaded the defense of restitution of his alleged than its objection to the issuance of the injunctive
accountabilities. writ, no legal interest in the matter subject of
litigation has been alleged by the Ombudsman in the
In a joint decision dated April 11, 2005, the Office of motion for intervention. xxx
the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found respondent
liable for grave misconduct5[7] because he failed to We disagree.
explain his side and settle his accountabilities in OMB-
The Office of the Ombudsman sufficiently
L-A-03-1060-K. He was meted the penalty of one year alleged its legal interest in the subject matter of
suspension from office. Via a petition for review on litigation. Paragraph 2 of its motion for intervention
certiorari under Rule 43 with a motion for the and to admit the attached motion to recall writ of
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the CA preliminary injunction averred:
2. As a competent disciplining body, the Ombudsman complaints filed in any form or manner against public
has the right to seek redress on the apparently officials or employees of the government, or any
erroneous issuance by this Honorable Court of the subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the including government-owned or controlled
implementation of the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify
imposing upon petitioner the penalty of suspension the complainants of the action taken and the result
for one (1) year, consistent with the doctrine laid thereof.
down by the Supreme Court in PNB [vs]. Garcia, xxx
and CSC [vs]. Dacoycoy, xxx; (citations omitted; RA 6770 states the mandate of the Ombudsman:
emphasis in the original) SEC. 13. Mandate. – The Ombudsman and his
deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act
In asserting that it was a “competent disciplining promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
body,” the Office of the Ombudsman correctly against officers or employees of the Government, or
summed up its legal interest in the matter in of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled
controversy. In support of its claim, it invoked its role
corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil
as a constitutionally mandated “protector of the and criminal liability in every case where the evidence
people,” a disciplinary authority vested with quasi- warrants in order to promote efficient service by the
judicial function to resolve administrative disciplinary Government to the people.
cases against public officials.6[32] To hold otherwise
would have been tantamount to abdicating its [The Office of the Ombudsman] is vested with “full
salutary functions as the guardian of public trust and administrative disciplinary authority” including the
power to “determine the appropriate penalty
accountability.
imposable on erring public officers or employees as
warranted by the evidence, and necessarily, impose
MANDATE OF THE OFFICE
the said penalty.” Thus, the provisions in [RA] 6770
OF THE OMBUDSMAN
taken together reveal the manifest intent of the
lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the
Section 27, Article II of the Constitution reads:
Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary
authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of
The State shall maintain honesty and
administrative adjudication which entails the
integrity in the public service and take positive and
authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct
effective measures against graft and corruption.
investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its
rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require
the production of documents, place under preventive
To implement this, the Constitution
suspension public officers and employees pending an
established the Office of the Ombudsman, composed
investigation, determine the appropriate penalty
of the Ombudsman, one overall deputy and at least
imposable on erring public officers or employees as
one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas and
warranted by the evidence and necessarily, impose
Mindanao.7[10] It was the intention of the
the said penalty.xxx (emphasis supplied)
Constitution to make the Ombudsman independent.
Full disciplinary authority is one of the broad powers
The purpose of the Office of the
granted to it by the Constitution and RA 6770. These
Ombudsman is enunciated in Section 12, Article XI of
broad powers, functions and duties are generally
the Constitution:
categorized into: investigatory power, prosecutory
power, public assistance functions, authority to
The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
inquire and obtain information, and the function to
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on
adopt, institute and implement preventive
measures.8[17]

Actions of the Ombudsman that do not fall

squarely under any of these general headings are not
to be construed outright as illegal. The avowed
purpose of preserving public trust and accountability
must be considered. So long as the Ombudsman’s
actions are reasonably in line with its official functions
and are not contrary to law and the Constitution, they
should be upheld. Defending its decisions in the CA is
one such power.

The Ombudsman is expected to be an

“activist watchman,” not merely a passive
onlooker.9[18] A statute granting powers to an
agency created by the Constitution ― such as RA
6770 ― should be liberally construed to advance the
objectives for which it was created.10[19] In
Buenaseda v. Flavier,11[20] we held that any
interpretation of RA 6770 that hampers the work of
the Ombudsman should be avoided.

Taking all this into consideration, the

Ombudsman is in a league of its own. It is different
from other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of
the government because the people under its
jurisdiction are public officials who, through pressure
and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss
investigations directed against them.12[21] Its
function is critical because public interest (in the
accountability of public officers and employees) is at
stake.