GR 146486; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146486. March 4, 2005. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND FORMER DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS ARTURO C. MOJICA, Respondents.
FACTS
Twenty-two officials and employees of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas filed a formal complaint against Deputy Ombudsman Arturo C. Mojica for sexual harassment, mulcting money from employees, and oppression. The complainants requested an investigation and the appointment of an officer-in-charge, threatening a mass leave. The Ombudsman installed an OIC and directed a fact-finding investigation. The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau found strong evidence, and the case was referred to a Committee of Peers.
The Committee initially recommended an investigation solely for impeachment purposes. The Ombudsman disapproved this, reiterating the official position that Deputy Ombudsmen are not impeachable officials. The Committee was directed to evaluate the merits for possible administrative and criminal investigation. It subsequently recommended the docketing of criminal and administrative cases. The Committee then issued an order for Mojica to submit his controverting evidence and, acting on a motion from complainants, placed him under preventive suspension.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate and preventively suspend a Deputy Ombudsman.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman possesses the constitutional and statutory authority to investigate and preventively suspend a Deputy Ombudsman. The Court clarified that Deputy Ombudsmen are not impeachable officers; only the Ombudsman himself is impeachable under the Constitution. Therefore, they are subject to the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority.
The legal logic is grounded in Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). Section 21 of this law grants the Ombudsman disciplinary authority over all public officials and employees, with specific exceptions not including his deputies. Section 24 explicitly authorizes the Ombudsman to preventively suspend any officer under his authority pending an investigation, when the evidence of guilt is strong and the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct, or if the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case. The charges against Mojica—oppression, grave misconduct, and dishonesty—fell squarely within these grounds. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s actions, including the delegation of the investigation to a Committee of Peers, were in accordance with the law and his mandate to ensure accountability in the public service.