OMBUDSMAN v.

APOLONIO
GR 165132 March 7, 2012 Brion, J.
Article XI - Section 13
Petitioners Respondents
Office of the Ombudsman Nellie R. Apolonio

Recit Ready Summary

 This is a petition that seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals and the
resolution which dismissed the Ombudsman’s Motion for Reconsideration. The assailed
decision annulled and set aside the decision of the Ombudsman, finding respondent Dr.
Nellie R. Apolonio guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty for the unauthorized purchase
and disbursement of SM gift cheques to employees participating in a Team Building
Seminar Workshop in lieu of a portion of their approved allowance for the said workshop.
Apolonio was recommended by Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Calderon, finding Apolonio
guilty in her memorandum, to be dismissed from service. The Acting Ombudsman approved
GIO Calderon’s findings and imposed the penalty of removal from service against Apolonio.
The pertinent issue then in this case is W/N the Ombudsman has the power to directly
impose the penalty of removal from office against public officials. The Court ruled that, yes,
the Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal in the exercise of its
administrative disciplinary authority. This is so because the Ombudsman has been
statutorily granted the right thru RA 6670 to impose administrative penalties on erring public
officials. That the Const. merely indicated a “recommendatory” power in the text of Sec.
13(3), Art. XI of the Const. did not deprive Congress of its plenary legislative power to vest
powers on the Ombudsman beyond that text.

Facts of the Case

 Petition seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals and the resolution which
dismissed the Ombudsman’s Motion for Reconsideration. The assailed decision annulled
and set aside the decision of the Ombudsman, finding Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio guilty of grave
misconduct and dishonesty.
 Apolonio served as the Executive Officer of the National Book Development Board (NBDB).
In December 2000, NBDB’s Governing Board approved a Team Building Seminar
Workshop for its officers and employees.
 The Dept. of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Budget Circular No. 442 prescribing a
Php 900 limit for each participant per day in any seminar/workshop undertaken by any gov’t
agency. In compliance, the NBDB disbursed Php 108,000 to cover the Php 1,800 allowance
of the 60 employees for the event.
 Prior to the team building, some employees approached Apolonio asking whether a part of
their allowance, instead of spending the entire amount on the seminar, could be given to
them as cash. Apolonio consulted Montealto, the Finance and Administrative Chief of
NBDD, about the proposal. Concluding it to be legally sound and in the spirit of the yuletide
season, Apolonio approved the request. Thus, after the end of the workshop, SM gift
cheques were distributed to the participants in lieu of a portion of their approved allowance.
 A complaint was filed against Apolonio and Montealto by an NBDB consultant before the
Ombudsman alleging that they committed grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the unauthorized purchase and
disbursement of the SM gift cheques.
 Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Calderon stated in her memorandum that Apolonio and
Montealto were found guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty. She also recommended
that Apolonio and Montealto be dismissed from the service. The Acting Ombudsman
approved GIO Calderon’s findings and imposed the penalty of removal from service.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal Yes.
from office against public officials. (pertinent issue)
2. W/N Apolonio’s acts constitute grave misconduct. No.

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
 The Court ruled that, yes, the Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee in the
exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. On the allegation that the Const. only
grants it recommendatory powers, the Court already rejected this interpretation in Ledesma
v. Court of Appeals. RA 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, mandated
the Ombudsman and his deputies not only to act promptly on complaints but also to enforce
the administrative, civil, and criminal liability of gov’t officers and employees. Sec. 15 of RA
6670 pertinently provides: “xxx That the refusal by any officer w/out just cause to comply w/
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.” This proviso is
a strong indication that the ombudsman’s “recommendation” is not merely advisory in
nature but is actually mandatory. The conclusion reached in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals is
that the Ombudsman has been statutorily granted the right (thru RA 6670) to impose
administrative penalties on erring public officials. That the Const. merely indicated a
“recommendatory” power in the text of Sec. 13(3), Art. XI of the Const. did not deprive
Congress of its plenary legislative power to vest powers on the Ombudsman beyond that
text.
 The Court ruled that Apolonio is not guilty of grave misconduct. Rather, they find that she is
only guilty of simple misconduct. This is so because her actions lack the willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules. She merely responded to the employees’
request to utilize a portion of their workshop budget as a form of Christmas allowance.

Disposition
Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the Ombudsman’s petition.

Separate Opinions
N/A