ADMIN LAW

Control of Administrative Action

G.R. No. 161629

FACTS
• Augusto Somalio filed a letter-complaint with the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) of the
Office of the Ombudsman requesting for an investigation on alleged anomalies surrounding the
extension of the Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) of 2 foreign nationals. The FIIB investigation
revealed 7 other cases of TRV extensions tainted with similar irregularities.
• The complaint (both criminal and administrative) against petitioner alleged the following illegal acts:
(a) irregularly granting TRVs beyond the prescribed period; and (b) using "recycled" or photocopied
applications for a TRV extension without the applicants affixing their signatures anew to validate the
correctness and truthfulness of the information previously stated therein.
○ Specifically, petitioner allegedly signed the Memorandum of Transmittal to the Board of
Commission (BOC) of the BID, forwarding the applications for TRV extension of several
aliens whose papers were questionable.
• Graft Investigation Officer Marlyn M. Reyes resolved the ​administrative cases filed and
recommended that petitioner be suspended from service for 1 year for conduct prejudicial to the
interest of the service.
• Respondent Ombudsman approved a Resolution of the Graft Investigation Officer Marilou B.
Ancheta-Mejica, dismissing the ​criminal​ charges against the petitioner for insufficiency of evidence.
• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration in the ​administrative case alleging that the BOC which
reviews all applications for TRVs extension, approved the TRVs in question, hence, petitioner
argued that it effectively declared the applications for extension regular and in order and waived any
infirmity thereon.
• Graft Officer Reyes recommended the denial of the motion for reconsideration which was approved
by respondent Ombudsman but reduced the period of suspension from 1 year to 9 months without
pay.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s suspension but reduced the period from 9 months to 6
months and 1 day without pay.

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUES - Whether or not the pronouncement of the CA that the finding of the Ombudsman is not
merely advisory on the Bureau of Immigration is contrary to the 1987 Constitution and applicable
decisions of the Court ​and Whether or not the CA failed to consider that the Ombudsman’s
resolution finding petitioner administratively liable constitutes an indirect encroachment into the
power of the Bureau of Immigration over immigration matters - NO
• The point of contention is the binding power of any decision or order that emanates from the Office
of the Ombudsman after it has conducted its investigation. Under Section 13(3) of Article XI of the
1987 Constitution, it is provided:
○ Section 13​. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and
duties:
■ (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official
or employee at fault, and ​recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ​ensure compliance therewith​.
○ Petitioner insists that the word "​recommend"​ be given its literal meaning; that is, that the
Ombudsman’s action is only advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect,
citing ​Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman
○ Respondents argue that the word "​recommend​" ​must be taken in conjunction with the
phrase "​and ensure compliance therewith"​ ​. They said that the proper interpretation of the
Court’s statement in ​Tapiador should be that the Ombudsman has the authority to
determine the administrative liability of a public official or employee at fault, and direct

A2023 LIM, Natalie Isabel P.

and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty
imposed. In short, it merely concerns the ​procedural aspect of the Ombudsman’s
functions and not its ​jurisdiction.​ The Supreme Court agrees with their argument.
• A cursory reading of ​Tapiador reveals that the main point of the case was the failure of the
complainant therein to present substantial evidence to prove the charges of the administrative
case. The statement that made reference to the power of the Ombudsman is, at best, merely an
obiter dictum.​ Hence, it cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration.
• Furthermore, the provisions of RA 6770 support public respondents’ theory.
○ SEC. 15. ​Powers, Functions and Duties. ​– The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:
■ (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer
or employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty
required by law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its
disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 of this Act: ​Provided​, ​That the
refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the
Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer
or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty
required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer;
• The proviso above qualifies the "order" "to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or
prosecute" an officer or employee – akin to the questioned issuances in the case at bar. That the
refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply with such an order of the Ombudsman to
penalize an erring officer or employee is a ground for disciplinary action, is a strong indication that
the Ombudsman’s "recommendation" is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory
within the bounds of law.
• By stating therefore that the Ombudsman "recommends" the action to be taken against an erring
officer or employee, the provisions in the Constitution and in RA 6770 intended that the
implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer, which in this case would be
the head of the BID.
• Under RA 6770, the lawmakers intended to provide the Office with sufficient muscle to ensure
that it can effectively carry out its mandate as protector of the people against inept and corrupt
government officers and employees.
• The Office was granted the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. It
was given disciplinary authority over ​all elective and appointive officials of the government and its
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies (with the exception only of impeachable officers,
members of Congress and the Judiciary). Also, it can preventively suspend any officer under its
authority pending an investigation when the case so warrants.
• The framers of our Constitution intended to create a stronger and more effective Ombudsman,
independent and beyond the reach of political influences and vested with powers that are not
merely persuasive in character. The Constitutional Commission left to Congress to empower the
Ombudsman with prosecutorial functions which it did when RA 6770 was enacted.
• As such, the SC held that the Court of Appeals did not commit any error in finding the petitioner
guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service and reducing petitioner’s period of
suspension to six (6) months and one (1) day without pay,

RULING: ​The instant petition is DENIED.

A2023 LIM, Natalie Isabel P.