Pre-Bar Review Administrative Law By Asst Ombudsman Rodolfo

Pre-Bar Review Administrative Law By Asst. Ombudsman Rodolfo M. Elman, CESO lll Ateneo de Davao Law School

• Republic of the Philippines (or GRP) as distinguished from National Government *Bacani vs. NACOCO * CB vs. Ablaza • Are GOCCs embraced in the term GRP? • “instrumentality” as defined in EO 292 • Status of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA vs. CA, 495 SCRA 592)

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction Cases: • Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga, 19 June 2008 ~DENR responsible for enforcement of forestry laws; forest products in custodia legis cannot be subject of replevin before the court. • Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 268 ~authority of Bureau of Immigration to decide deportation case and in the process determine citizenship issue raised by the deportee.

• The doctrine applies only whenever it is the court and the administrative agency which have concurrent jurisdiction. The doctrine is inapplicable where there is concurrence of jurisdiction between two disciplining authorities over a case.

HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344) • Claims/cases over which the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction (Sec. 1, PD 1344) • CT Torres vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268 (specific performance for delivery of CT) • Home Bankers vs. CA, 547 SCRA 167 (declare void a mortgage of lot xxx and annul a foreclosure sale) • Cadimas vs. Carrion, 567 SCRA 103 (mere allegation of relationship bet. owner and buyer: no automatic jurisdiction)

Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799) • Amended PD 902 -A and transferred jurisdiction of SEC over intra-corporate cases to the courts • A criminal charge for violation of the code is a specialized dispute that should first be looked into by the SEC and if it finds probable cause, it should refer to the DOJ for PI (SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp. , 567 SCRA 365)

Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112) • Remedy of the interested expressway user who finds the toll rate adjustments to be onerous, oppressive and exorbitant (Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 664)

Quasi-Judicial Power • express empowerment by law; merely incidental and in aid of main function • the action or discretion … to investigate facts and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action • involves: a) taking and evaluating evidence; b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved.

Cases • Sanado vs. CA, 356 SCRA 546 (Action of POEA to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke license of any private placement agency) • Eastern Telecom vs. Int’l Communication Corp. , 435 SCRA 55 (power of NTC to issue CPCN) • Balangauan vs. CA, 562 CRA 186 (A PI is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and DOJ is not a quasi -judicial agency when it reviews findings of the prosecutor re presence of probable cause) • UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404 (Board empowered to withdraw conferment of degree founded on fraud). • Carino vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483 (Fact-finding is not adjudication) 2001 BQ

Rule vs. Forum Shopping • applies to quasi-judicial proceedings. • test of violation: a) where the elements of litis pendenti are present; or b)where final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. • requirement to file certificate of non-forum shopping, although not jurisdictional, is mandatory; if not complied, summary dismissal is warranted. • certification signed by counsel alone is defective, unless clothed with special authority.

Cases • General rule: certificate must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case; exception (HLC Construction vs. Emily Homes Homeowners Assn. , 411 SCRA 504) • Appellate court finds merit or compelling reason for non-compliance with the rule (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 719) • Rule not applicable to agency not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function (Cabarrus vs. Bernas, 279 SCRA 388) or the cases do not raise identical causes of action (Velasquez vs. Hernandez, 437 SCRA 358)

Quasi-Legislative Power • A relaxation of principle of separation… • Requirements for validity of rules • If issued in excess of rule making authority, no binding effect upon the courts; treated as mere administrative interpretations of the law • Mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable construction may be given • Statute authorizing Pres. to suspend

Cases • Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 SCRA 241 (Rev. Memo Circular 7 -85 inconsistent with the NIRC) • Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (AO 308 providing for adoption of a national computerized identification reference system) • Dadole vs. COA, 393 SCRA 272 (LBC of DBM setting a maximum limit to additional allowances to be given by LGU to national gov’t officials)

• Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848 (PRC resolution prohibiting attendance in accountancy review classes) • Confederacion National vs. Quisumbing, 26 January 1988 (MECS Order phasing out Spanish) • Sand vs. Abad Santos Educational Inst. , 18 July 1980 (Board of Examiners for Nursing regulation for period inspection)

• Review Center vs. Exec. Secretary, 583 SCRA 428 (EO 566 authorizing the CHED to supervise the operation of all review centers vis-à-vis RA 7722) • KMU vs. Director General, 487 SCRA 623 (EO 420 directing all government agencies to adopt a unified multi-purpose ID system) • British American Tobacco vs. Camacho, 562 SCRA 519 (Revenue issuance empowering the BIR to reclassify cigarette brands) • Romulo & Mabanta vs. HDMF, 333 SCRA 777 (HDMF Board Regulations providing both provident/retirement and housing benefits vis-àvis RA 7742)

Fiscal Autonomy • entails freedom from outside control ad limitations, other than those provided by law; recognizes the power to levy, assess and collect fees, fix compensation rates not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribe by them in the discharge of their functions; formulate and implement their organizational structure and compensation of their personnel.

Cases • CHREA vs. CHR, 444 SCRA 300 (upgrading/creation of FMO and PAO in CHR) • CHREA vs. CHR, 496 SCRA 227 (privilege of having its approved annual appropriations released automatically and regularly, but not fiscal autonomy in its extensive sense) • CSC vs. DBM, 22 July 2005 (no report, no release DBM policy; P 5. 8 M withheld amount) • Re: Clarifying… 481 SCRA 1 (DBM has no authority to downgrade SC positions/salary grades)

Power to issue subpoena • no inherent power to require attendance of witnesses • Sec. 13 & 37, Ch. 3, Bk. Vll, EO 292: admin bodies now authorized to require attendance of witnesses, or production of records xxx; includes power to administer oath, summon witnesses and issue subpoenas • administrative subpoena distinguished from judicial subpoena

Power to punish contempt • should be clearly defined and granted by law and its penalty determined. • limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony and it cannot be exercised in furtherance of administrative functions; this limitation derives from its nature being inherently judicial & need for preservation of order in judicial proceedings. • Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 06 April 1995 (OMB power to punish for contempt xxx)

Implementing Rules or Interpretative Policies • authority to interpet… • Not binding upon courts but have force/ effect of law and entitled to great respect. • general policy to sustain decision of administrative bodies on basis of separation of powers and their knowledgeability and expertise. • abrogation of previous acts or rulings of predecessor in office.

• Guidelines in resolving disputes re interpretation by an agency of its rules (Eastern Telecom vs. ICC, 481 SCRA 163) • Non-effectivity of SEC 1990 Circular re applicable filing fee at time of PICOP filing of request (SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 453) • Requisites for validity of admin rules and regulations; Art. 2, Civil Code • What need to be published?

Cases • Phil. International Trading vs. COA, 309 SCRA 177 (DBM Circular disallowing payment of allowances) • Philsa International Placement Corp. vs. Labor Secretary, 356 SCRA 174 (POEA Circular not filed with the National Administrative Register cannot be basis for imposition of administrative sanctions; a requisite under Secs. 3 & 4, Bk Vll, EO 292) • Honasan vs. DOJ Panel, 13 April 2004 (OMBDOJ Joint Circular 95 -01 an internal circular)

• Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 317 (1978 NTC Rules to apply in the grant of provisional authority to Bayan. Tel despite filing of 1993 Revised Rules with UP Law Center. The National Admin Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules…) • SEC vs. GMA Network, 575 SCRA 113 (SEC Circular imposing a filing fee for amendments extending corp. existence needs to be published as it implements mandate of RA 3531 and it affects public)

Requirement of Admin Due Process 1. Impartial tribunal *Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256 2. Due notice and hearing or opportunity to be heard *Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143 *Alcala vs. Villar, 18 November 2003 *OMB vs. Estandarte, 521 SCRA 155 *OMB vs. Masing, 542 SCRA 253 *Laxina vs. OMB, 471 SCRA 544

• Approval in a TRB resolution of provisional rates of public utilities without hearing and by TRB Directors who did not attend personally the hearing (Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 666) • Independent consideration of law and facts, and not simply rely on dispositive portion of PCAGC Reso (DOH Secretary vs. Camposano, 457 SCRA 440) • Decision prepared by a SP Member (Malinao vs. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616)

Cases on admin due process • CSC as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge (Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650) • Motu proprio CSC action under Sec. 12 and ordinary disciplinary proceeding under Sec. 47, EO 292 (CSC vs. Albao, 472 SCRA 548) • Reviewing Officer (Zambales Mining vs. CA, 94 SCRA 261)

• Singson vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 358 (Labor Arbiter Aquino promoted to Commissioner as reviewing officer) • Tejano vs. Ombudsman, 462 SCRA 568 • Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 319 (NTC order reviving archived application of Bayan. Tel) • CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560 (respondent must be duly informed of charge)

• Procedural vs. substantive due process • Ruivivar vs. Omb. , 565 SCRA 325 (opportunity, on filing MR, to be heard) • Gaoiran vs. Alcala, 444 SCRA 420 (unverified complaint filed w/ CHED) • NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 707 (service of summons or order on OSG)

• Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 (assistance of counsel in admin proceedings, not absolute requirement) • Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing not lost by cessation in office of respondent during pendency of his case • Instances of admin determination where notice and hearing are not necessary

Right vs. self-incrimination • Available in all kinds of proceedings • Available only to natural persons and not to a juridical person. • Reason for rule

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies • Reasons for the doctrine • Effect of failure to observe doctrine • Applicable only to acts in the performance of a quasi-judicial, not rule-making, function (Holy Spirit Homeowners Assn. vs. Defensor, 497 SCRA 582). • MR must first be filed under NLRC Rules before special civil action for certiorari • Action to recover forestry products under DENR custody (Task Force Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga, 19 June 2008)

Cases • Increase in water rates, review by LWUA (Merida Water Dist. vs. Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204) • Third party claim questioning the validity of levy in the labor case (Deltaventures Resources vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA 522) • OSP a component of OMB (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 717) • RSP has administrative supervision, not control, over CPs and PPs (Aurillo vs. Rabi, 392 SCRA 604) • Protests re CARP implementation under exclusive jurisdiction of DAR Secretary (DAR vs. PCPI, 564 SCRA 80)

• Appeal the reassignment order of RM to NIA Administrator and to CA (Corsiga vs. Defensor, 391 SCRA 274) • Appeal the monetary award of the DOLE Reg. Director to the Labor Secretary (Laguna CATV vs. Maraan, 392 SCRA 226) • Submission of dispute to Lupon for amicable settlement under Sec. 408 LGC (Berba vs. Pablo, 474 SCRA 686) • Appeal the LLDA Order re payment of penalty to the DENR Secretary in view of the transfer of LLDA to DENR for admin supervision (Alexandra Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 453)

Precepts to remember! • Instances where a prior MR is unnecessary • Similarity/Distinction between doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction • Commonality/Distinction between exhaustion of admin remedies and due process concept

Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies • Demaisip vs. Bacal, 06 December 2000 • Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 75 • Lastimoso vs. Senior Insp. Asayo, 06 March 2007 • Quisumbing vs. Gumban, 193 SCRA 523 • Binamira vs. Garucho, 190 SCRA 154 • Castro vs. Gloria, 363 SCRA 423 • Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology, 443 SCRA 56

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency • In the absence of a constitutional proviso or statute to the contrary, official acts of a dep’t secretary are deemed acts of the President unless… • Authority of Exec. Secretary to reverse Decision of Director • Doctrine not applicable to OMB • Province of Camarines Norte vs. Province of Quezon, 367 SCRA 91

• Delegation of duties of Department Secretaries as members of NPB (NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assn. vs. NPC, 503 SCRA 138) • DENR Secretary’s Order transferring regional office from Cotabato City to Koronadal City (DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees, 409 SCRA 359)

Principle of Presidential Power of Control • President’s power over the executive branch of government, including all executive officers… • Power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside… • Reorganization of DOH under EO 102: not a usurpation of legislative power (Tondo Medical Center Employees Assn. vs. CA, 527 SCRA 748)

Cases • President’s directive for development of housing project w/o DENR authorization (Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241) • Distinguishing power of control from power of supervision (Bito-onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732)

President’s Power of General Supervision • ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or the subordinate acts within the law • President’s power of general supervision extends to the Liga ng mga Barangay • not incompatible with power to discipline which includes power to investigate • Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases vs. elective local officials lodged in two authorities: Disciplining Authority and Investigating Authority

Findings of Facts • General rule and exceptions • Bautista vs. Araneta, 326 SCRA 234 (tenancy issue) • Fabian vs. Agustin, 14 February 2003 (conflicting factual findings) • Matuguina Wood Products vs. CA, 263 SCRA 508

• Evidentiary or factual matters not proper grounds in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 • Requisites for petition for certiorari to proper (Alexandra Condo. Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 455) • All errors or decisions of admin bodies involving questions of law subject to judicial review under Sec. 5 (2 e), Art. Vlll of Constitution • Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to judicial review (Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts)

Immunities • Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil immunities to persons unless the law explicitly confers such power • PCGG under EO 14 A • Apply Art 2028, Civil Code: amicable settlement in civil cases applicable to PCGG cases • OMB under Sec. 17 of RA 6770

Three-fold Responsibility • Remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively • Rule: Admin cases are independent from criminal cases Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final admin determination (Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232)

• Hierarchy of evidentiary values • A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts are attendant in the admin proceedings (Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406) • Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria vs. Sunga , 368 SCRA 551) • Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the discretion given to the OMB.

• Desistance will not automatically result to dismissal of admin case. Complainant is a mere witness xxx • Rule on anonymous complaints • Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation • Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer seeking elective office (Omb vs. Torres, 566 SCRA 365)

Aggrieved Party who may appeal the admin decision • Sec. 39(a), PD 807: Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision x x x. • CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426 • A party may elevate a decision of CSC before the CA thru petition for review under Rule 43 of Revised Rules of Court. • OMB vs. Samaniego, 564 SCRA 569

• Gen. Rule: Decisions of admin agencies have, upon their finality, the binding effect of a final judgment w/in purview of res judicata doctrine. • Exceptions: a. supervening events make it imperative to modify a final judgment b. its application would sacrifice justice to technicality c. waiver of parties/not timely raised as a defense d. issue of citizenship

PNP • Sec. 6, Art. XVl of 1987 Constitution • Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon citizen’s complaint under Sec. 42 of RA 6975 concurrent with PNP Chief/regional directors under Sec. 45 • Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOM thru NAB and RAB • Appeals from decision of NAPOLCOM should be with DILG and then with CSC

• Criminal cases involving PNP members are w/in exclusive jurisdiction of regular courts. Courtsmartial are not courts • Power to appoint chief of police in the LGU (Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA 696) • Exercise of police powers reserved for uniformed PNP personnel; RA 5750 superseded by RA 6975 (Alunan vs. Asuncion, 323 SCRA 623)

AFP • An Act Strengthening Civilian Supremacy over the Military by Returning to Civil Courts the Jurisdiction over Certain Offenses involving AFP Members, Other Persons Subject to Military Law (RA 7055) • General Rule: AFP members … who commit crimes penalized under RPC, other special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court.

• Exception: Where the civil court, before arraignment, has determined the offense to be service connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial. • Exception to the exception: Where the President, in the interest of justice, directs before arraignment that any such crime shall be tried by the proper civil court. • Lt. Gonzales et al vs. Abaya, 498 SCRA 446 *Necessity of delineation of jurisdiction between civil courts and courts martial

OSG (PD 478; Admin Code) • Gen. Rule: OSG represents the gov’t and its instrumentalities. ~Actions in the name of the RP or its instrumentality, if not initiated by the Sol. Gen, will be summarily dismissed. • Exceptions: 1. When the gov’t office is adversely affected by contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept. 1990) 2. Sol. Gen deputizes legal officers xxx (Sec. 35, Ch. 123. Bk l. V, EO 292)

• Gen. Rule: Sol. Gen can represent a public official in all civil, criminal and special proceedings when such proceedings arise from the latter’s acts in his official capacity. • Exception: Such official or agent is being charged criminally or being sued civilly for damages arising from a felon.

Cases • Telcom Dir. Pascual vs. Judge Beltran, 505 SCRA 559 • Urbano vs. Chavez & Co vs. Chavez, 183 SCRA 347 • NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 706 (proper basis for computing the reglementary period to file an appeal) • Republic vs. Desierto, 389 SCRA 452 (petition under Rule 65 by RP thru PCGG w/o OSG participation re OMB dismissal of graft case vs. Cojuangco et al. )

Ombudsman Constitutional Mandate • As protector of the people, OMB has the power, function and duty to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials and to investigate any act or omission of any public official when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Public Officers covered • All elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions, including GOCCs * Laurel vs. Desierto, 381 SCRA 48 * RA 7975 as amended by RA 8249 * Javier vs. Sandiganbayan, 599 SCRA 325 (private sector representative sitting as Board member of the NBDB created by RA 8047)

Need for Prompt Action • • • Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70 Angchangco vs. OMB, 13 February 1997 Ombudsman vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135 (FFI in 1992; admin case in 1997 and decision in 1999 – 6 mos. Suspension of Customs employee for neglect of duty)

Cases on OMB Jurisdiction • • Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 637 Honasan vs. DOJ Panel , 04/13/04 Orcullo vs. Gervacio, 314 SCRA 452

Subpoena Power of OMB q “Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry, including the power to examine and have access to bank accounts and records. ” [Sec. 15(8), RA 6770] Ø PNB vs. Gancayco, 15 SCRA 91 Ø Banco Filipino vs. Purisima, 161 SCRA 576 Ø Marquez vs. Desierto, 359 SCRA 773 q EO 251 dated 25 November 2003 of the Office of the President

Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority? • Impeachable Officials * In re: Raul M. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 • Members of Congress • OMB vs. Mojica, 452 SCRA 714 • Judiciary * Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 46 * Caoibes vs. Alumbres, 07/19/01 * Fuentes vs. Ombudsman, 368 SCRA 36 * Garcia vs. Miro, 582 SCRA 127 (2009)

Formal Administrative Investigation • Verified written complaint shall be accompanied by Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping (Rule III, Sec. 3, AO No. 07). • Concurrent Jurisdiction *Laxina, Sr. vs. Ombudsman, 471 SCRA 544 • Referral of certain complaints to the proper disciplinary authority (Sec. 23(2), RA 6770) • Magna Carta Act for Public School Teachers (RA 4670) • Higher Education Modernization Act (RA 8282) *CSC vs. Sojor, 05/22/08

Cases On Magna Carta Act • Fabella vs. CA, 378 SCRA 256 • Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 18 November 2003 • Ombudsman vs. Estandarte, 521 SCRA 155 (transfer of case to OMB) • Cruz vs. Civil Service Commission, 370 SCRA 650 (investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge) • CSC vs. Sojor, 22 May 2008 (RA 8282 Higher Education Modernization Act)

OMB Power of Preventive Suspension • Nature of and conditions required for preventive suspension • Salaries during preventive suspension period • Distinctions: vis-à-vis Civil Service Law (PD 807 and E 0 292) and the Local Government Code (RA 7160)

Cases on Preventive Suspension • Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207 • Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 233 SCRA 311 • Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 646 • OMB vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 718

Administrative Adjudication, how conducted (AO No. 17) • Filing of pleadings/ position papers. • Clarificatory hearings (discretionary) • Non-litigious ; technicalities of law, procedure and evidence not strictly applied • Parties allowed the assistance of counsel; due process clause does not encompass right to be assisted by counsel (Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125)

Some Rules in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation • An absolution from a criminal charge does not affect administrative prosecution. • Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria vs. Sunga, 368 SCRA 551). • The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of a complainant does not necessarily result in the dismissal of the complaint. • The death or retirement of a public officer from the service does not preclude finding of administrative liability (Judge Loyao vs. Caube, 402 SCRA 33).

Some Grounds for Administrative Action • To warrant removal from office of an employee, the misconduct must be directly related to the performance of official duties. • For those not related to the functions of office, the act should amount to a crime and conviction by final judgment of the crime involving moral turpitude or disqualification to hold office is prerequisite • Dishonesty need not be committed in the performance of duty. • Non-payment of just debt.

Rule On Elective Officials • Doctrine of Condonation or Forgiveness (Aguinaldo vs. Santos, 212 SCRA 768) • Doctrine not applicable to criminal acts which the reelected official may have committed during his previous term (People vs. Jaloslos, 324 SCRA 692) • Ombudsman vs. Torres, 566 SCRA 365) *cannot benefit an appointive officer (Staff Asst. seeking elective office).

Finality and Execution of Decision • Decision is final, executory and unappealable if respondent is acquitted, or penalty is reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or fine equivalent to one month salary. *Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753 • All other cases, appeal to the Court of Appeals on verified petition for review within 15 days • Remedy from OMB decision exonerating respondent (LWUA Admtr. Reyes vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 31)

Penalty • The penalty of dismissal from the service carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. • Exception: entitled to leave credits earned

Effect of Appeal on Decision • An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case penalty is suspension or removal and respondent wins the appeal, he shall be considered as being under preventive suspension and he shall be paid the salary (OMB Administrative Order No. 17 dated 09/07/03). • A decision of the Ombudsman shall be executed as a matter of course. Failure or refusal to comply with the OMB Order shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

Immediate Execution of Administrative Decisions • The decision of the Ombudsman imposing six months’ suspension without pay upon Mayor Buencamino for abuse of authority is immediately executory under AO No. 17 of the Ombudsman (Buencamino vs. CA, 12 April 2007) • Stay of execution (OMB vs. City Treasurer Samaniego, 564 SCRA 570)

Preliminary Investigation DOJ prosecutors may investigate cases against public officials in their capacity as either Deputized Ombudsman Prosecutors or regular prosecutors. However, the choice has been made in favor of the former capacity (as Deputized OMB Prosecutor) in the OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95 -01, which together with AO No. 08, provides for automatic deputization. OMB retains control and supervision if charge is related to office. DOJ Prosecutors rule with finality if charge is not related to office.

Cases on Preliminary Investigation • Mamburao vs. Ombudsman, 344 SCRA 818 • Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721 • Garcia vs. Primo, 397 SCRA 41 • PCGG vs. Desierto, 22 January 2007

Effect on OMB re COA’s Non-Finding of Liability • COA’s approval of a government official’s disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does not foreclose the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate and determine whethere is a crime to be prosecuted for which such official is answerable. While COA may regard the official to have substantially complied with it’s accounting rules, this fact is not sufficient to dismiss the criminal case. (Aguinaldo vs. Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121)

• The fact that petitioners’ accounts and vouchers had passed in audit is no ground to enjoin the fiscal from conducting PI to determine their criminal liability for malversation. A finding of probable cause does not derive its veracity from the COA findings but from the OMB’s independent determination (Dimayuga vs. OMB, 20 July 2006).

Remedies from a probable cause finding • Only one MR or reinvestigation allowed within five (5) days from notice, with leave of court where information has already been filed in court. • Validity of information is not affected by lack of notice of adverse resolution to the respondent (Kuizon vs. Desierto, 354 SCRA 158). • Filing of MR/reinvestigation does not prevent the immediate filing of information in court (Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116).

Court of Appeals; No Authority Over OMB Resolutions in Criminal Cases. • The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the OMB in administrative disciplinary cases only – it cannot review the orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. Since the CA has no jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling directing the withdrawal of the criminal case filed by the Ombudsman before the RTC against respondent POEA employee Fung is void (Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321).

Preventive Suspension • Section 13, RA 3019 • Nature: mandatory after determination of validity of information

Cases on Preventive Suspension in Criminal Proceedings • Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383 • Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409 • Berona vs. Sandiganbayan, 435 SCRA 306 • Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA 636

COA • Constitutional mandate • Coverage of COA’s jurisdiction • COA and Central Bank have concurrent jurisdiction to examine and audit gov’t banks, but COA audit prevails for 2 reasons xxx • Entitlement of informer’s reward as determined by BIR and DOF, although conclusive on the executive agencies, is not binding on COA (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. COA, 218 SCRA 204)

• COA cannot payment of back wages to employees, w/c had been decreed pursuant to a final CSC decision (Cagatin vs. COA, 21 March 2000) • COA disallowance of extension of foreign consultant’s services (NHA vs. COA, 226 SCRA 65) • COA classification as to who were entitled to the social amelioration benefits (Cruz vs. COA, 368 SCRA 85)

PCGG • Empowered to bring proceedings forfeiture of property allegedly acquired unlawfully before Feb. 25, 1986; those acquired after that date is vested in OMB. • Ramas’ position as Commanding General of the Phil. Army not sufficient (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 13) • Sec. 4(b) of EO 1 declared unconstitutional (Sabio vs. Chair Gordon, 504 SCRA 704)

Central Bank • Actions of the MB in proceedings on insolvency are final and executory and may not be set aside except upon convincing proof the action is plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith. • “Close now and hear later” policy ~no prior notice and hearing required ~prerequisites to MB action to close down a bank and appoint receiver ~rationale

DAR (RA 6657) • Primary jurisdiction to adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform (Sec. 50) • Original and exclusive jurisdiction of RTC over: 1) all petitions for determination of just compensation; and 2) prosecution of all criminal offenses under the Act.

• Agrarian dispute: any tenurial arrangement – leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise – over lands devoted to agriculture. • Tenancy relation cannot be extinguished by mere expiration of period in leasehold contract; or by the sale, or transfer of legal possession of the land. • Home lot is incident to a tenant’s rights, even if constituted on residential lot of landowner and not on the farm.

end