G.R. No. 160596 March 20, 2009
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Ignacio Bajao, Respondent

FACTS

A complaint was filed against Municipal Treasurer Ignacio Bajao (respondent) for Failure to Make Delivery of Public Funds and Grave Abuse of Authority for withholding the complainants’ uniform allowance for 1999. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) found respondent administratively liable for Simple Misconduct and imposed a penalty of one month suspension from office without pay. The Ombudsman ordered the immediate implementation of its decision, citing that a penalty not exceeding one month suspension is final and unappealable. Respondent filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), disputing the factual basis of the decision and arguing that the Ombudsman may only recommend, not directly impose, a penalty of suspension. The CA granted the petition, ruling that the Ombudsman exceeded its authority, as its power under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 is merely recommendatory. The CA also absolved respondent, finding he was justified in withholding the allowance due to lack of required authorization. The Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered to conduct administrative adjudication proceedings and directly impose penalties, such as suspension, on public officers.
2. Whether orders/decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing a penalty of suspension of one month are appealable.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA, holding that the Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory authority to directly impose administrative penalties, including suspension, on erring public officials. The Court cited its previous rulings in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Armilla and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos, which explicitly declared that the scope of the Ombudsman’s authority under Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 is broad enough to include the direct imposition of penalties like removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or censure. The Court clarified that the Ombudsman’s power is not merely recommendatory but includes adjudicative and disciplinary authority.
2. No. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the Ombudsman imposing a penalty of suspension for not more than one month are final and unappealable. This is pursuant to Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and the Ombudsman’s procedural rules. However, such decisions are still subject to judicial review through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s imposition of the penalty.
The petition was GRANTED. The CA Decision and Resolution were REVERSED and SET ASIDE.