Scribd
Upload
108 views1 page

19 - Office of The Ombudsman v. Masing

The Ombudsman charged two public school employees, Floria Masing and Jocelyn Tayactac, with collecting unauthorized fees and mismanaging public funds. The employees claimed the Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction over them and that only the Department of Education had authority. The Ombudsman found the employees guilty. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 1987 Constitution and Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman has authority to directly discipline all public officials and employees, including public school teachers, except those that can only be removed by impeachment. The Ombudsman is intended to play an active role in enforcing anti-graft laws

Uploaded by

Maria Lourdes Dator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views1 page

19 - Office of The Ombudsman v. Masing

The Ombudsman charged two public school employees, Floria Masing and Jocelyn Tayactac, with collecting unauthorized fees and mismanaging public funds. The employees claimed the Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction over them and that only the Department of Education had authority. The Ombudsman found the employees guilty. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 1987 Constitution and Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman has authority to directly discipline all public officials and employees, including public school teachers, except those that can only be removed by impeachment. The Ombudsman is intended to play an active role in enforcing anti-graft laws

Uploaded by

Maria Lourdes Dator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Office of the Ombudsman v.

Masing (2008)

Doctrine: The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 were quite explicit in conferring authority
on the Ombudsman to act on complaints against all public officials and employees, with the
exception of officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over members of Congress
and the Judiciary. In fine, the manifest intent of the lawmakers was to bestow on the Office of
the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority in accord with the constitutional
deliberations. The Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 is intended to
play a more active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and other
offenses committed by public officers and employees. The Ombudsman is to be an “activist
watchman,” not merely a passive one. He is vested with broad powers to enable him to
implement his own actions.

Summary: Respondents Floria Masing was a former principal and Jocelyn Tayactac was an
office clerk of the Davao City Integrated Special School. They were administratively charged
before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees,
failing to remit authorized fees, and to account for public funds; and for oppression, serious
misconduct, discourtesy in the conduct of official duties, and physical or mental incapacity or
disability due to immoral or vicious habits. They moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over them. They alleged that the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports has jurisdiction over them under RA 4670 (“Magna Carta For Public School
Teachers”). The Ombudsman found them guilty. CA reversed.

Issues: Whether or not the Ombudsman may directly discipline public school teachers and
employees, and not merely recommend appropriate disciplinary action to the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).

Ruling: Yes. The authority of the Ombudsman to act on complaints filed against public officers
and employees is explicit in Article XI, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, viz: “The
Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints
filed in ANY form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the
result thereof.” The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770) enacted on November 17, 1989 gave
the Office such other powers that it may need to efficiently perform the task given by the
Constitution.

You might also like