Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.

173268,
August 23, 2012

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Facts:

Petitioner is employed as a Clerk I in the Bureau of

Customs in 1982, and as Clerk II in 1988. But due to
exigency of the service, he was designated as a Special
Collecting Officer at the NAIA Customs House. In 2002, a
Commission on Audit State Auditor detailed at the said
Cutom House was directed to conduct a port audit of the
abstract collection of all collecting officers of the NAIA.
Thereafter, it was reported that petitioner actually failed to
remit an amount of more than P50M. Hence, a Criminal
Case was filed against him. The Ombudsman, instead, found
the petitioner guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct,
and he was thereafter dismissed from service.

Issues:

Whether the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss

erring public officials or employees.

Whether there was substantial evidence to support the

finding the petitioner is guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct which warrants his dismissal from public
service.

Ruling:

Yes, the Ombudsman has such power. Well-settled is

the rule that the power of Ombudsman to determine and
impose administrative liability is not merely
recommendatory but actually manadatory. Hence, in this
case, the Ombudsman has the power to order petitioner's
dismissal from service.
 Yes, substantial evidence was satisfied. It was held that
he was the only collecting officer authorized to receive
payment from the sale of BOC Forms and CDS at the
Collection Division, therefore, he is accountable for all the
collections and thereafter the remittance in the NAIA
Customs House. Hence, the discrepancy between the audit
sales and the actual amount remitted by petitioner is
sufficient evidence of dishonesty and grave misconduct
warranting dismissal form public service.