Case Digest (G.R. No. 167982)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Merceditas de Sahagun, Manuela T. Waquiz and Raidis J. Bassig, G.R. No. 167982, August 13, 2008, the Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Raidis J. Bassig, then Chief of the Research and Publications Division of the Intramuros Administration, in November 1992 recommended commissioning Brand Asia, Ltd. to produce a video documentary and to implement related media and marketing work. The Intramuros Administration’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), chaired by respondent Merceditas de Sahagun with respondent Manuela T. Waquiz as member, recommended award to Brand Asia; Intramuros Administrator Edda V. Henson approved and Notices of Award/Proceed issued, and contracts were executed in November 1992 and June 1993 for a video and print collaterals.
An anonymous complaint to the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PGAC) in March 1995 led to Henson’s dismissal on November 30, 1995 for awarding contracts without public bidding in violation of Section 3(a) and (e) of R.A. No. 3019. On August 8, 1996 an anonymous complaint praying investigation of BAC members was filed with the Ombudsman. On September 5, 2000 the Fact‑Finding Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) filed criminal and administrative charges against respondents (and others) for violations of Section 3(a) and (c) of R.A. No. 3019 and related administrative charges, docketed as OMB‑0‑00‑1411 (criminal) and OMB‑ADM‑0‑00‑0721 (administrative). The criminal docket OMB‑0‑00‑1411 was dismissed for lack of probable cause on February 27, 2002.
Graft Investigation Officer Joselito P. Fangon, in a proposed decision dated June 19, 2002, recommended dismissal of the administrative case OMB‑ADM‑0‑00‑0721. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo disagreed and, by Order dated March 10, 2003, found respondents and a co‑respondent guilty of grave misconduct for bypassing public bidding requirements under Executive Order No. 301, dismissing them from service; another respondent received suspension. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration; by Order dated June 24, 2003 Ombudsman Marcelo partially granted reconsideration and reduced the findings to simple misconduct with suspension of six months (and other reductions for co‑respondents).
Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for review of the Ombudsman’s March 10 and June 24, 2003 Orders. On April 28, 2005 the CA in CA‑G.R. SP No. 78008 set aside the Ombudsman’s Orders, ruling that (a) under Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) the complaint filed more than seven years after the acts was barred by the one‑year period; and (b) the Ombudsman’s powers are only recommendatory and it cannot directly dismiss public officials (relyin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 6770 bar administrative investigation and proceedings where the complaint is filed more than one year after the occurrence of the alleged act or omission?
- Does the Ombudsman possess only recommendatory powers and thus lack authority to directly impose administrative sanctions (such as dismissal or suspension) on erri...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)