Case Summary (G.R. No. 196231)
Petition for Certiorari Against OP Decision (Gonzales)
Gonzales challenges his summary dismissal by the OP for “Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct constituting betrayal of public trust,” complaining lack of jurisdiction, due-process defects, and absence of substantial evidence.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (Sulit)
Sulit contests the OP’s authority to investigate her plea-bargaining approval of a corruption case against a retired general, asserting that such administrative discipline is premature and usurps the Ombudsman’s independence.
Constitutional Basis for Ombudsman Independence
Section 5, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution creates an “independent Office of the Ombudsman.” Sections 12–13 grant broad investigatory, supervisory, and disciplinary powers over almost all public officials, ensuring insulation from political pressure.
Constitutional and Statutory Removal Powers
Constitution, Article XI, Section 2: Impeachment applies only to certain high officials. It adds that “all other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” RA 6770 Section 8(2) relies on this grant to vest the President, concurrently with the Ombudsman, the power to remove Deputies and Special Prosecutors for causes equivalent to impeachment grounds plus “betrayal of public trust.”
Concurrent Jurisdiction of President and Ombudsman
RA 6770 Sections 8(2) and 21 reflect Congress’s intent to allow both the Ombudsman and the President to exercise disciplinary authority over Deputy Ombudsmen and Special Prosecutors, a check-and-balance measure against mutual protection.
Harmonious Construction and Legislative Intent
Statutory interpretation demands that no provision be rendered inoperative. Sections 8(2) (external removal) and 21 (internal disciplinary authority) must be read together as concurrent jurisdiction, honoring Congress’s dual-authority design.
Precedent on Shared Disciplinary Authority
In Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, this Court upheld concurrent jurisdiction between the OP and Ombudsman under the Local Government Code and the Ombudsman Act. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Delijero, the Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s discretion to defer to specialized disciplinary authorities.
Due Process and Substantial Evidence Standards
Administrative due process requires notice of charges and opportunity to answer; Gonzales filed an Answer though he skipped a clarificatory conference. Guilt must rest on substantial evidence—more than a scintilla, “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Constitutional Standard for “Betrayal of Public Trust”
Added as an impeachment ground in Article XI, Section 2, it covers “gross faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise of discretion” but excludes mere errors of judgment or isolated negligence.
Application to Gonzales: Factual Findings and Reversal
The OP found Gonzales guilty for procedural delays in resolving a motion for reconsideration, undue interest in Mendoza’s case, and failure to suspend Mendoza’s dismissal pending review. These acts, though reflecting negligence, did not rise to “betrayal of public trust.” The Court reverses his removal, orders reinstatement with full backwages, and refers any residual administrative charge
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 196231)
WENDELL BARRERAS-SULIT v. ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.
Procedural Background
- Two separate petitions consolidated—G.R. No. 196231 (Gonzales) and G.R. No. 196232 (Barreras-Sulit)—because both challenge the President’s power to discipline officials of the Office of the Ombudsman.
- G.R. No. 196231: Petition for Certiorari (with TRO/SQO) filed by Deputy Ombudsman Emilio A. Gonzales III, assailing OP Decision dated March 31, 2011 (OP Case No. 10-J-460) dismissing him for gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct.
- G.R. No. 196232: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with TRO/SQO) filed by Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit, seeking to annul (1) an undated OP order requiring a written explanation regarding plea-bargaining in Sandiganbayan case; and (2) a Notice of Preliminary Investigation dated April 7, 2011 (OP-DC-Case No. 11-B-003).
- Both petitions include a constitutional challenge to Section 8(2) of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), which authorizes the President to remove a Deputy Ombudsman or Special Prosecutor “for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process.”
Facts
- In 2008, Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales received administrative complaints against P/S Insp. Rolando Mendoza for grave misconduct (robbery, threats, extortion, physical injuries) brought by Christian Kalaw and the PNP-IAS.
- Mendoza’s case (OMB-P-A-08-0670-H) led to a Decision on February 16, 2009 recommending dismissal from service; Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2009.
- A draft resolution denying Mendoza’s motion reached Gonzales on April 27, 2010, and was forwarded for final approval on May 6, 2010; the motion remained unresolved for over nine months.
- On August 23, 2010, Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus in Manila, killing several Chinese nationals and himself during a rescue. Public outcry prompted creation of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC).
- IIRC found Gonzales guilty of gross neglect of duty, inexcusable delay of Mendoza’s motion, and undue interest in Mendoza’s case; recommended referral to OP.
- On October 15, 2010, OP filed administrative charges against Gonzales (gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, misconduct in office); Gonzales filed an Answer but skipped the February 8, 2011 clarificatory conference. OP rendered dismissal on March 31, 2011.
- Earlier (2003), Major Gen. Carlos F. Garcia’s sons pleaded guilty in the U.S. to bulk cash smuggling, triggering Philippine investigations into their father’s alleged P300 million ill-gotten wealth; plunder and anti-money laundering charges filed