Title
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Nellie R. Apolonio
Case
G.R. No. 165132
Decision Date
Mar 7, 2012
The Ombudsman challenged the CA's ruling that found Dr. Apolonio only liable for simple misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman can impose penalties, ruling Apolonio guilty of simple misconduct for misusing public funds without intent for corruption.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 221932)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Positions
    • Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio served as the Executive Officer of the National Book Development Board (NBDB) from 1996 to August 26, 2002.
    • As Executive Officer, she supervised the NBDB Secretariat and managed its day-to-day operations.
    • The Office of the Ombudsman filed a case against her for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
  • The Controversial Workshop Allowance
    • In December 2000, the NBDB Governing Board approved a two-day Team Building Seminar Workshop for its officers and employees slated for December 20-21, 2000.
    • The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circular No. 442 dated March 29, 1995 prescribed a daily limit of P900.00 per participant for seminars/workshops/confereces.
    • NBDB disbursed P108,000.00 to cover allowances for 60 employees for the two-day event.
  • Reallocation of Allowance Funds
    • Some employee participants requested to receive part of their allowance as cash instead of spending the entire amount for the seminar.
    • Dr. Apolonio consulted NBDB Finance and Administrative Chief, Rogelio Montealto, who deemed the proposal legally sound.
    • Dr. Apolonio approved the request, and after the workshop, SM gift cheques were distributed to attendees in lieu of a portion of their allowances.
  • Ombudsman Complaint and Initial Proceedings
    • NBDB Consultant Nicasio I. Marte filed a complaint against Dr. Apolonio and Mr. Montealto with the Ombudsman on August 24, 2001.
    • The complaint charged grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for unauthorized purchase and disbursement of gift cheques.
    • Dr. Apolonio claimed good faith, motivated by employees' welfare requests.
  • Investigations and Findings
    • Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Plaridel Oscar J. Bohol found them administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest but exonerated from grave misconduct and dishonesty.
    • GIO Julita M. Calderon disagreed and found Dr. Apolonio guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to service, recommending dismissal.
    • The Acting Ombudsman approved Calderon’s findings on August 21, 2002, ordering removal and denied Dr. Apolonio’s motion for reconsideration.
  • Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings
    • Dr. Apolonio petitioned the CA; on March 23, 2004, CA annulled Ombudsman’s decision.
    • CA ruled the Ombudsman lacked power to directly impose removal penalties, citing constitutional limits (Section 13(3), Article XI).
    • Found no corrupt intent or dishonesty; only held liable for conduct prejudicial to best interest of service.
    • Imposed six-month suspension but deducted salary from retirement benefits due to her retirement.
  • Ombudsman’s Reconsideration and Petition
    • Ombudsman moved to reconsider, but CA denied the motion on August 23, 2004.
    • Ombudsman filed for certiorari review before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Does the Office of the Ombudsman have the power to directly impose the penalty of removal against public officials?
  • Do the acts of Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio constitute grave misconduct?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.