G.R. No. 233999 - Telephilippines, Inc. vs. Jacolbe

The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari against the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision, which declared that the Ombudsman has no power to impose the penalty of suspension, only to recommend penalties such as removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution.
The respondents were Nicomedes Armilla, Delia Batasin-in, James Fuentes, Oscar Gador, Santos Guigayoma, Jr., Clarito Miaoza, Ernesto Naraja, Nelson Obeso, Senen Seriao, and Martin Yase, employees of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Visayas Regional Office No. VII.

Joan and Thomas Corominas, and Maria Constancia Corominas-Lim filed a criminal complaint with the Ombudsman for violation of Article 281 (Other Forms of Trespass) of the Revised Penal Code against the DENR employees, docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-99-1227.
The same complaint was also treated as an administrative complaint for abuse of authority and misconduct (OMB-VIS-ADM-99-1044).

It was alleged the respondents unlawfully entered property owned by the Corominas family despite a “NO TRESPASSING” sign.
The respondents claimed their entry was pursuant to a Regional Trial Court (RTC) Order dated September 14, 1999, which authorized a relocation survey of certain lands including the Sudlon National Park, related to Civil Case No. CEB-17639.
The DENR Regional Executive Director issued Travel Orders authorizing respondents to conduct the relocation survey.
The DENR survey team, with police and barangay officials, conducted the survey starting October 25, 1999, identified key boundary markers, and completed the survey by November 12, 1999.
Respondents denied malicious intent, asserting they merely complied with a lawful court order and official travel orders.

The criminal complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause by the Ombudsman on August 31, 2001.
In the administrative case, the Ombudsman found the respondents (except Arregadas) guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a one-month suspension on October 24, 2001.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on January 10, 2002.
Respondents petitioned the CA for certiorari, arguing that under Republic Act No. 6770, penalties not exceeding one month suspension are final and unappealable and that they could not be guilty as they acted under a court order.

The CA affirmed respondents’ guilt but ruled the Ombudsman had no power to impose suspension, only to recommend it, thereby setting aside the Ombudsman’s decision imposing suspension.

The Ombudsman challenged the CA ruling, arguing that the CA erred in limiting its authority to only recommend penalties and that the power to impose penalties is duly granted by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770.
The petition details the legislative intent for the Ombudsman to have full administrative disciplinary authority including the power to impose penalties.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to impose, and not merely recommend, administrative penalties such as suspension on public officials found guilty of administrative offenses.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Ombudsman’s decision on the ground that the Ombudsman lacks power to directly impose penalties.

Whether the finding of guilt and penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman should be respected and affirmed by the Supreme Court.