GR 167982; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167982 ; August 13, 2008
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. MERCEDITAS DE SAHAGUN, MANUELA T. WAQUIZ and RAIDIS J. BASSIG, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, members of the Intramuros Administration’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), were charged administratively by the Office of the Ombudsman for grave misconduct. The charges stemmed from their 1992-1993 recommendation to award contracts to Brand Asia, Ltd. without public bidding, leading to the dismissal of then Administrator Edda Henson. An anonymous complaint was filed with the Ombudsman in 1996. After investigation, the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a six-month suspension.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the Ombudsman’s orders. The CA ruled that the complaint, filed more than one year after the alleged acts, was barred under Section 20(5) of the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770). Furthermore, citing the Tapiador case, the CA held that the Ombudsman’s power is merely recommendatory and not punitive, lacking authority to directly impose penalties like suspension.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) whether Section 20(5) of RA 6770 prescribes administrative offenses after one year, and (2) whether the Ombudsman possesses direct disciplinary authority to penalize erring public officials.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Ombudsman’s suspension order. On the first issue, the Court held that administrative offenses do not prescribe. The one-year period in Section 20(5) of RA 6770 is merely directory, not mandatory, and constitutes a discretionary authority for the Ombudsman to decline investigation in stale cases. It is not a statute of limitations. The primary objective of administrative proceedings is not punishment but the improvement of public service and preservation of public trust, which is not subject to prescriptive periods.
On the second issue, the Court explicitly abandoned the obiter dictum in Tapiador that the Ombudsman’s power is only recommendatory. The Court affirmed its prevailing jurisprudence that the Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory mandate to directly impose administrative sanctions under Section 13(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution , in relation to Section 15 and 21 of RA 6770. This includes the power to suspend, dismiss, or otherwise penalize erring public officials, except members of Congress and the Judiciary. Therefore, the Ombudsman acted within its authority in finding respondents liable and imposing the penalty of suspension.