LEDESMA v.
CA (NAME) applications and that the TRVs in question were all approved by the BOC,
Month, date, year | Ponencia, J. | Topic
PETITIONER: Ronaldo P. Ledesma
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, in his
capacity as Ombudsman, Hon. Abelardo L. Aportadera, in his capacity as
Assisstant Ombudsman, and Ombudsman;s Fact Finding and Intelligence
Bureau, represented by Director Agapito Rosales
SUMMARY: The CA affirmed the order of the Ombudsman to suspend
Ledesma without pay but reducing its duration from initially 1 year into 6
months and 1 day. Ledesma filed a petition for review with the SC alleging that
the Ombudsman’s orders are merely recommendatory only and thus has no
power to implement the penalty. The SC held that the Ombudsman has power
based on the 1987 Constitution and the Ombudsman act. The word
“recommend” merely states that their decisions and orders are intended to be
coursed through the proper officer which is the superior of the erring officer or
employee.
DOCTRINE: The Ombudsman has the power to impose and implement
penalties against erring officers or employees. This however must be coursed
through the proper officer who is the superior of the erring officer or employee
FACTS:
1. Ronaldo Ledesma is the chairman of the First Division of the Board of
Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. (BID)
2. A letter-complaint was filed by Augusto Somalio with the Fact Finding and
Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman. (OMB)
Somalio alleged that there were anomalies surrounding the extension of
Temporary Resident Visas (TRV) of 2 foreign nationals. Thus, an
investigation was done by the FFIB which revealed 7 other cases of
anomalous TRV extensions.
3. Thereafter, the FFIB filed before the Administrative Adjudication Bureau
(AAB) of the OMB a formal complaint against Ledesma. The complaint
against Ledesma was treated as both criminal (9 counts of violation of Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and for falsification of public documents)
and administrative complaint. (9 counts of dishonesty, grave misconduct,
falsification of public documents and gross neglect of duty)
4. The Graft Investgation Officer resolved the administrative case against
Ledesma. It was recommended that Ledesma be suspended for 1 year
without pay.
5. Assistant Ombudsman Aportadera reviewed the resolution which was
approved by the Ombudsman Desierto.
6. Meanwhile, the criminal charges were dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence.
7. Ledesma then filed a motion for reconsideration in the administrative case
alleging that the Board of Commission (BOC) of the BID reviews all
hence, Ledesma argued that it effectively declared the applications regular
and in order and waived any infirmity thereon.
8. Graft Officer Reyes recommended the denial of the motion for
reconsideration which was approved by the Ombudsman but reduced
the penalty to 9 months without pay.
9. Ledesma then filed a petition for review with the CA with a prayer to enjoin
respondents from implementing order of suspension. The CA then issued a
TRO.
10. Eventually, the CA affirmed Ledesma’s suspension but reduced the
penalty to 6 months and 1 day without pay.
11. With his motion for reconsideration denied by the CA, Ledesma elevated
the matter to the SC and accordingly filed a petition for review.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether the CA overlooked relevant facts and matters which would have
justified a different conclusion in favor of Ledesma – NO (YES na sa MR,
but still Ledesma was admonished by the SC)
2. Whether the CA erred in pronouncing that the finding of the
Ombudsman is not merely advisory on the BID – NO
3. Whether the CA failed to consider that the Ombudsman’s resolution
finding Ledesma administratively liable constitutes an indirect
encroachment into the power of the BID over immigration matters –
NO
RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision xxx of the
Court of Appeals xxx are AFFIRMED
[Motion for Reconsideration] WHEREFORE, xxx Decision is MODIFIED. Instead
of suspension xxx for 6 months and 1 day, xxx Ledesma is hereby ADMONISHED
to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties xxx.
RATIO:
FIRST ISSUE
LEDESMA: It was the BOC which approved the questioned applications. He denies
that he misled or deceived the BOC into approving these applications and argues that
the BOC effectively ratified his actions and sanctioned his conduct when it approved
the subject applications. He added that he acted in good faith and the government did
not suffer any damage because of his alleged administrative lapse.
1. BSI transmits application for TRV extension and interviews applicants and
evaluates their papers before making a recommendation to the BOC. The
BSI reviews applications and when it finds them in order, it executes a
Memorandum of Transmittal to the BOC certifying to the regularity and
propriety of the applications
2. All heads of offices have to rely, to a reasonable extent, on their
subordinates. It is not unreasonable for the BOC to rely on the evaluation
and recommendation of BSI. Ledesma, as chairman of a BSI division, has
 direct supervision over its proceedings. He cannot feign ignorance or good
faith when the irregularities in the TRV extension applications are so
patently clear on its face. He is principally accountable for certifying the
regularity and propriety of the applications.
3. Also untenable according to the SC that the BOC’s approval of the
defective applications cured any infirmities effectively absolving Ledesma’s
administrative lapses. The instant case pertains to Ledesma’s acts as
Chairman in processing 9 defective applications independent of the actions
taken by BOC. It did not deal with the validity of the TRVs as to encroach
on BID’s authority over immigration matters.
4. [Motion for Reconsideration] While it is the BSI which screens the
applicants and evaluates their papers, it is the BOC which ultimately
reviews and approves the applications for extension. The BOC makes its
own independent evaluation and determination although the BSI’s
recommendation has persuasive effect. Review is a re-examination for
purposes of correction. It is exercised to determine whether it is necessary
to correct that acts of the subordinate and to see to it that he performs his
duties in accordance with law. By approving the applications for TRV
extensions transmitted by Ledesma, the BOC found no impropriety or had
effectively waived or renounced the deficiencies in the TRV applications.
SECOND ISSUE
LEDESMA: Ledesma questions the CA’s pronouncement that ‘the findings of the
Ombudsman “may not be said to be merely recommendatory” upon the Immigration
Commissioner.’ He argues that upholding the CA’s ruling expands the authority of
the Ombudsman. According to him, the Ombudsman’s findings that the TRV
applications were illegal constitutes an indirect interference by the Ombudsman into
the powers of the BOC over immigration matters.
1. The Ombudsman and his deputies are mandated to act promptly on
complaints filed against officers or employees of the Government. Among
its powers is the authority to investigate cases involving public officers and
employees.
2. The Ombudsman Act mandated the OMB and his deputies to not only act
promptly on complaints but also to enforce the administrative, civil, and
criminal liability of government officers and employees in every case where
the evidence warrants to promote efficient service by the Government to the
people.
3. The point of contention is the binding power of any order that emanates
from the OMB after it has conducted its investigation. In the 1987
Constitution
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties:
...
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure,
or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
Ledesma: OMB’s orders are merely recommendatory
SolGen and OMB: Ombudsman has authority to determine administrative
liability and to implement penalty imposed.
4. The SC held that the SolGen and OMB’s position to be correct. In Sec 15 of
Ombudsman Act
SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have
the following powers, functions and duties:
...
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or
employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by
law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority
as provided in Section 21 of this Act: Provided, That the refusal by any officer
without just cause to comply with 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; (Emphasis supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ
5. The provision in the Ombudsman Act qualifies the “order” to “remove,
suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute” akin to the questioned
issuances at bar. That the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to
comply with such an order of the Ombudsman to penalize and erring
officer or employee is a ground for disciplinary action, is a strong
indication that the Ombudsman’s “recommendation” is not merely
advisory but is actually mandatory.
6. It has long been settled that the power of the Omb to investigate and
prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official is not an
exclusive authority but a concurrent authority in respect of the offense
charged. By stating that the Ombudsman recommends the action
against an erring officer or employee, both the 1987 Constitution and
the Ombudsman act intended that the implementation of the order be
coursed through the proper officer which in this case is the head of the
BID.
7. It is apparent that under RA 6770, the legislature intended to provide
with sufficient muscle to ensure that the Ombudsman can effectively
carry out its mandate against inept and corrupt government officers
and employees. As it has power to punish contempt, it has disciplinary
authority over all elective and appointive officials, and it can
preventively suspend any officer under its authority pending and
investigation.