You are on page 1of 129

Administrative Law

By Asst. Ombudsman Rodolfo M. Elman, CESO lll Ateneo de Davao Law School

Republic of the Philippines (or GRP) as distinguished from National Government * CB vs. Ablaza Are GOCCs embraced in the term GRP? Bacani vs. NACOCO

Instrumentality as defined in EO 292

any agency of the National Gov't not integrated w/in the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law & enjoying operational autonomy, usually thru a charter. Status of the Manila International Airport Authority: not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the National Gov't vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions (MIAA vs. CA, 495 SCRA 592).

The Iron and Steel Autority (ISA) is a nonincorporated agency or instrumentality of the GRP. When its statutory term expires, the powers, duties & functions as well as the assets & liabilities of that agency revert back and are reassumed by the RP, in the absence of statutory provision specifying some other disposition (ISA vs. CA, 249 SCRA 539).

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Courts cannot & will not determine a controversy involving a question w/c is w/in the jurisdiction of an admin tribunal, especially where the question demands exercise of sound admin discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience & services of the admin tribunal to determine technical matters of fact. When does it apply? Reasons for this doctrine 4th branch of government

Cases: ~DENR responsible for enforcement of forestry laws; forest products in custodia legis cannot be subject of replevin before the court. Respondents taking cognizance of replevin suit constitutes ignorance of the law (Sagip Kalikasan vs. Paderanga, 06/19/08). Enforcement of forestry laws is w/in DENRs jurisdiction. ~authority of Bureau of Immigration to decide deportation case and in the process determine citizenship issue raised by the deportee. (Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 268) ~Exception: there is substantial evidence supporting claim of citizenship.

The doctrine applies only whenever it is the court and the administrative agency which have concurrent jurisdiction. The doctrine is inapplicable where there is concurrence of jurisdiction between two disciplining authorities over a case.

HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344)

Claims/cases over which the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction (Sec.1, PD 1344) The complaint for specific performance w/ damages re delivery of CT filed w/ RTC comes under HLRB jurisdiction (CT Torres vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268). Nothing in PD 957 vests HLURB with jurisdiction to impose Sec. 39 criminal penalties. What the law provides is authority of HLURB to impose admin fines under Sec. 38 (Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 231).

HLURB has jurisdiction to declare void a mortgage of lot xxx and annul a foreclosure sale (Home Bankers vs. CA, 547 SCRA 167). Mere claim of relationship bet. owner and buyer: no automatic jurisdiction in HLURB. The decisive element is the nature of the action as enumerated in Sec. 1 of PD 1344 (Cadimas vs. Carrion, 567 SCRA 103). Here, petitioner claims that she entered into a contract to sell a townhouse but Carrion breached the contract when she transferred it to a 3rd party w/o petitioners consent. The complaint for cancellation of contract & recovery of possession & ownership of townhouse is w/in jurisdiction of the court.

HLURB & not SEC has jurisdiction over complaint vs. respondent under receivership for specific performance re: basic homeowners needs (Arranza vs. BF Homes, 333 SCRA 800). There is no forum shopping where contractor sues before HLURB to enforce Contract to Purchase & files another suit in court to collect money re: unpaid billings from Construction Contract (Marina Properties Corp. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 273).

Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799)

RA 8799 amended PD 902-A and transferred jurisdiction of SEC over intracorporate cases to the courts. A criminal charge for violation of the code is a specialized dispute that should first be looked into by the SEC under doctrine of primary jurisdiction and if it finds probable cause, it should refer to the DOJ for PI (SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp., 567 SCRA 365). SEC investigation interrupts prescriptive period.

Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112)

Remedy of the interested expressway user who finds the toll rate adjustments to be onerous, oppressive and exorbitant is to file a petition for review of the adjusted toll rates with TRB. The issue involves question of facts xxx. TRB decision is appealable w/in 10 days to the Office of President. (Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 664)

express empowerment by law; merely incidental and in aid of main function the action or discretion to investigate facts and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action & to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. involves: a) taking and evaluating evidence; b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved. PCGG is a co-equal body of RTC (PCGG vs. Judge Pena, 02/07/89).

Quasi-Judicial Power

Action of POEA to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke a license of any private placement agency is quasi-judicial. POEA, on its own initiative, may conduct the necessary proceeding xxx (Sanado vs. CA, 356 SCRA 546). Power of NTC to issue CPCN for the installation, operation & maintenance of communication facilities & services, including authority to determine the area of operation of applicants for telecommunication services (Eastern Telecom vs. Intl Communication Corp., 435 SCRA 55).

A PI is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency when it reviews findings of the prosecutor re presence of probable cause (Balangauan vs. CA, 562 CRA 186). UP Board is empowered to withdraw conferment of degree founded on fraud (UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404). Constitution grants CHR the power to investigate all forms of human rights violatons involving civil & political rights, but it does not include power to adjudicate. Fact-finding is not adjudication (Carino vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483; 2001 BQ).

Rule vs. Forum Shopping

applies to quasi-judicial proceedings. test of violation: a) where the elements of litis pendenti are present; or b)where final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. requirement to file certificate of non-forum shopping, although not jurisdictional, is mandatory; if not complied, summary dismissal is warranted. certification signed by counsel alone is defective, unless clothed with special authority.

General rule: certificate must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case; exception (HLC Construction vs. Emily Homes Homeowners Assn., 411 SCRA 504) Appellate court finds merit or compelling reason for non-compliance with the rule (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 719). OMB decision dismissing criminal case vs. DPWH RD Montemayor does not operate as res judicata in the PAGC admin case vs. him for unexplained wealth (Montemayor vs. Bundalian, 405 SCRA 264). Rule is not applicable to agency not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function (Cabarrus vs. Bernas, 279 SCRA 388) or the cases do not raise identical causes of action (Velasquez vs. Hernandez, 437 SCRA 358)

Quasi-Legislative Power
A relaxation of principle of separation Requirements for validity of rules If issued in excess of rule making authority, no binding effect upon the courts; treated as mere administrative interpretations of the law Mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable construction may be given Statute authorizing Pres. to suspend operation of law upon happening of act

Rev. Memo Circular 7-85 inconsistent with the NIRC (Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 SCRA 241). AO 308 providing for adoption of a national computerized identification reference system (Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141). LBC of DBM setting a maximum limit to additional allowances to be given by LGU to national government officials (Dadole vs. COA, 393 SCRA 272)

PRC resolution prohibiting attendance in accountancy review classes (Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848) MECS Order phasing out Spanish (Confederacion National vs. Quisumbing, 26 January 1988) Board of Examiners for Nursing regulation for period inspection (Sand vs. Abad Santos Educational Inst., 18 July 1980)

Revenue issuance empowering the BIR to reclassify cigarette brands (British American Tobacco vs. Camacho, 562 SCRA 519) HDMF Board Regulations providing both provident/retirement and housing benefits vis-vis RA 7742 (Romulo & Mabanta vs. HDMF, 333 SCRA 777) Creation of new AFP Anti-Graft Board through PCGG issuance (Republic vs. Migrino, 189 SCRA 300)

Mere absence of implementing rules cannot invalidate law; Full Disclosure Rules promulgated by SEC on 07/24/96 while Revised Securities Act approved on 02/23/82 (SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp., 567 SCRA 354) EO 566 authorizing the CHED to supervise the operation of all review centers vis--vis RA 7722 (Review Center vs. Exec. Secretary, 583 SCRA 428) EO 420 directing all government agencies to adopt a unified multi-purpose ID system (KMU vs. Director General, 487 SCRA 623)

Fiscal Autonomy
entails freedom from outside control ad limitations, other than those provided by law; recognizes the power to levy, assess and collect fees, fix compensation rates not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribe by them in the discharge of their functions; formulate and implement their organizational structure and compensation of their personnel. It is a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by membership.

While members of the CFAG are authorized to formulate & implement organizational structure of their respective offices & determine the compensation of their personnel, such authority is not absolute & must be exercised w/in the parameters of the Unified Position Classification and Compensation System administered by the DBM. Thus, CHR cannot lawfully implement an upgrading & reclassification of positions w/o DBM imprimatur. The upgrading/creation of FMO and PAO in CHR was not authorized by any law (CHREA vs. CHR, 444 SCRA 300).

CHR has a certain degree of fiscal autonomy thru the privilege of having its approved annual appropriations released automatically and regularly, but not fiscal autonomy in its extensive sense like using their appropriations to effect changes in their organizational structure & their savings for certain official purposes (CHREA vs. CHR, 496 SCRA 227)

Funds for agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy should be automatically & regularly released, and not conditioned on the no report, no release DBM policy. The withholding of P5.8M by the DBM, allegedly due to revenue shortfall, is unconstitutional (CSC vs. DBM, 22 July 2005). Even granting there is revenue shortfall, these agencies should be given priority. The exception is where total revenue collections are so low that they are not sufficient to cover the total appropriations for all entities vested with fiscal autonomy.

Re: the SC resolution creating positions of Chief Judicial Staff Officer (SG 25) & Supervising Judicial Staff Officer (SG 23), the DBM has no authority to downgrade such SC positions/salary grades. The DBM authority extends only to calling the attention of the SC on its perceived erroneous application of budgetary laws & rules. The SC may then amend or modify its resolution as its discretion may dictate under the law. Here, DBM encroached on SCs fiscal autonomy and supervision of court personnel, hence, unconstitutional (Re: Clarifying & Strengthening the Organizational Structure & Administrative Set-up of the Philippine Judicial Academy, 481 SCRA 1).

Power to issue subpoena

Admin agencies have no inherent power to require attendance of witnesses. Sec. 13 & 37, Ch. 3, Bk. Vll, EO 292: admin bodies are now authorized to require attendance of witnesses, or production of records xxx. Authority to take testimony or receive evidence includes the power to administer oath, summon witnesses and issue subpoenas.

administrative subpoena distinguished from judicial subpoena A subpoena may be enforced if the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information is reasonably relevant (Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99).

Power to punish contempt

It should be clearly defined and granted by law and its penalty determined. EO 292 states that unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of RTC to punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. It is limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony and it cannot be exercised in furtherance of administrative functions; this limitation derives from its nature being inherently judicial & the need to preserve order in judicial proceedings.

RA 6770 gives the Office of the Ombudsman the power to punish for contempt in accordance w/ Rules of Court. Petitioners argument that they cannot be held liable for contempt because their refusal arose out of an administrative rather than judicial proceeding before the OMB is w/o merit. The PI of a case, of w/c the filing of information is a part, is quasi-judicial in character. Whether petitioners refusal to follow the OMB orders constitutes defiance is for respondent to determine after appropriate hearing (Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 06 April 1995).

Implementing Rules or Interpretative Policies

Admin bodies have authority to interpret at first instance the laws they are to execute. Interpretations are not binding upon courts but have force/ effect of law and entitled to great respect. general policy is to sustain the decision of administrative bodies on basis of separation of powers and their presumed knowledgeability and expertise. abrogation of previous acts or rulings of predecessor in office.

Requisites for validity of admin rules and regulations (Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446) -must be issued under authority of laws -must be within the scope & purview of the law -must be reasonable -must be published Art. 2, CC as repealed by EO 200 What need to be published? *When the issuances are of general applicability, publication is necessary as a requirement of due process.

Guidelines in resolving disputes re interpretation by an agency of its rules (1) whether the delegation of power was valid; (2) whether the regulation was w/in that delegation; (3) whether it was a reasonable regulation under the due process test (Eastern Telecom vs. ICC, 481 SCRA 163) SEC violated due process when it denied the public prior knowledge of SEC 1990 Circular removing the filing fee ceilings provided for in SEC 1986 Circular. Non-effectivity of SEC 1990 Circular re applicable filing fee at time of PICOP filing of request in 2002 as SEC filed said Circular w/ UP Law Center only in 2004 (SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 453)

DBM Circular disallowing payment of allowances is of no force & effect due to absence of publication. That it was reissued & submitted for publication in OG does not cure the defect (Phil. International Trading vs. COA, 309 SCRA 177). POEA Circular not filed with the National Administrative Register cannot be used as basis for imposition of administrative sanctions; a requisite under Secs. 3 & 4, Bk Vll, EO 292 (Philsa International Placement Corp. vs. Labor Secretary, 356 SCRA 174). Rules imposing a penalty as authorized by the law itself must be filed & registered w/UP Law Center (Secs. 3 & 4, Bk. Vll, EO 292).

OMB-DOJ Joint Circular 95-01 is merely an internal circular bet. the DOJ & the OMB, outlining the authority & responsibilities among prosecutors in conduct of PI. Said circular does not regulate the conduct of persons or the public in general, nor does it contain any penal provision or prescribe a mandatory act. Hence, it need not be published (Honasan vs. DOJ Panel, 13 April 2004). What need not be published? *Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, i.e regulating only the personnel of the agency and not the public. *LOIs issued by administrative superiors concerning rules to be followed by subordinates

1978 NTC Rules to apply in the grant of provisional authority to BayanTel despite filing of 1993 Revised Rules with UP Law Center. The 1993 NTC RR should have been published in OG or newspaper of general circulation before it can take effect. The National Admin Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules (Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 317). SEC Circular # 1 imposing a filing fee of 1/10 of 1% of AC plus 20% thereof for amendments extending corp. existence needs to be published as it implements mandate of RA 3531 and it affects public (SEC vs. GMA Network, 575 SCRA 113).

Requirement of Admin Due Process

1. Impartial tribunal *Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256 2. Due notice and hearing or opportunity to be heard *Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143 *Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 11/18/03 *OMB vs. Masing, 542 SCRA 253 *Laxina vs. OMB, 471 SCRA 544 3. Procedure consistent w/essentials ofer fair trial 4. Proceedings should be conducted to give opportunity for court to determine whether applicable rule of law & procedure were observed.

Approval in a TRB resolution of provisional rates of public utilities without hearing and by TRB Directors who did not attend personally the hearing (Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 666) Exercise of disciplining authoritys prerogative requires prior independent consideration of law and facts, & not simply rely on dispositive portion of PCAGC Reso. Her finding should contain factual finding & legal assessment (DOH Secretary vs. Camposano, 457 SCRA 440) Decision prepared by a SP Member (Malinao vs. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616)

Due Process in Admin Proceedings

What it includes: 1) right to actual or constructive notice to the institution of proceedings; 2) real opportunity to be heard personally or with counsel, to present evidence; 3) impartial tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction; and 4) finding by said tribunal w/c is supported by substantial evidenceknown to parties affected. A decision rendered in disregard of the fundamental right to due process is void for lack of jurisdiction (Garcia vs. Molina, 627 SCRA 541)

Cases on admin due process

CSC as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge (Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650) GSIS as complainant, prosecutor and judge (Garcia vs. Molina, 627 SCRA 540) Motu proprio CSC action under Sec. 12 and ordinary proceeding to discipline a bona fide member of the system under Sec. 47, EO 292 (CSC vs. Albao, 472 SCRA 548) Reviewing Officer (Zambales Mining vs. CA, 94 SCRA 261)

Labor Arbiter Aquino whose decision is subject of appeal is the reviewing officer as Commissioner of NLRC (Singson vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 358) Tejano vs. Ombudsman, 462 SCRA 568 NTC order reviving archived application of BayanTel w/o notice to oppositor is not denial of procedural due process (Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 319).

Respondent must be duly informed of charge vs. him & he cannot be convicted of a crime with w/c he was not charged (CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560). Essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard or seek a reconsideration of the ruling complained of. Procedural vs. substantive due process

There is no denial of due process when on her filing a MR from the decision reprimanding her was given opportunity to be heard but she refused to file pleading (Ruivivar vs. Omb., 565 SCRA 325) Unverified complaint filed w/ CHED is not the complaint w/in purview of EO 292. It merely commences FFI. The formal charge of the CHED Legal Office vs. Gaoiran constituted the complaint (Gaoiran vs. Alcala, 444 SCRA 420).

One may be heard not solely by verbal presentation but also thru pleadings in admin proceedings. Technical rules of procedure & evidence are not strictly applied (Concerned MWSS Officials vs. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502). Due process in admin context does not require trial-type proceedings (UP Board vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404). Service of summons or order on OSG (NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 707)

Where a party appears by counsel in an action in court or administrative body, all notices required to be given must be served to the counsel and not to the client. Notice to counsel is notice to client (Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. NLRC, 7/23/90). Notice to any one of the several counsels on record is notice to all and such notice starts the time running for appeal despite that the other counsel on record has not received a copy of the decision (PPA vs. Sargasso Const., 435 SCRA 512).

The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, exercisable only in the manner & in accordance with law (Tiatco vs. CSC, 216 SCRA 749). Assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement in administrative inquiry (Ampong vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 294).

A party in an admin inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, regardless of nature of charges & of respondents capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person investigated w/counsel (Sebastian vs. Garchitorena, 397 Phil.519) Respondent has option of engaging the services of counsel or not. Right to counsel is not imperative because admin inquiry is conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures vs. erring public officers, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the government service (Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125).

Negligence of counsel binds the client (Maquilan vs. Maquilan, 524 SCRA 166); the only exception is when negligence of counsel is gross, reckless & inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court (Razon vs. Pp, 525 SCRA 284). Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing is not lost by cessation in office of respondent during pendency of his admin case. The body retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce him innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof (Perez vs. Abiera, 62 SCRA 302).

Cardinal Primary Rights in Administrative Proceedings

1. 2. 3. 4. Right to a hearing; Tribunal must consider the evidence presented; Decision must have something to support itself; Evidence on which decision is based must be substantial; 5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at hearing, or at least contained in the record & disclosed to the parties affected; 6. Board or judge must act on its own independent consideration of the law & facts of the controversy, & not simply accept views of th subordinate in arriving at a decision.

Instances of admin determination where notice and hearing are not necessary. 1.Summary abatement of nuisance per se 2.Cancellation of passport by DFA 3.Summary proceedings of distraint & levy of property of delinquent taxpayer 4.Preventive suspension 5.Grant of provisional authority for increased rates, or to engage in particular line of business (PLDT vs. NTC, 190 SCRA 717).

Right vs. self-incrimination

Available in all kinds of proceedings Available only to natural persons and not to a juridical person. Reason for exclusion of juridical persons from no self-incriminatory rule is the need for admin bodies tasked by legislature to see to the compliance with law and public policy.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial intervention, he is to exhaust all means of administrative redress available under the law. 3 reasons for the doctrine A direct action in court w/o prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, when required, is premature, warranting its dismissal on a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action. The failure to observe the doctrine does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

Doctrine is applicable only to acts in the performance of a quasi-judicial, not rulemaking, function (Holy Spirit Homeowners Assn. vs. Defensor, 497 SCRA 582). MR must first be filed under NLRC Rules of Procedure before special civil action for certiorari under 65 of Rules of Court may be availed of (Sunshine Transp. Vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 51). Action to recover forestry products under DENR custody shall be directed to that agency and not the courts (Task Force Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga, 19 June 2008).

Sec. 8, PD 705 as amended states that 1. All actions and decisions of the Bureau of Forest Development (now LMB) Director are subject to review by the DENR Secretary; 2. The decisions of DENR Secretary are appealable to the President; and 3. Courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR Secretary except thru a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition.

Distinction bet. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction & Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Both deal with the proper relationships between courts and administrative bodies. Exhaustion applies where the claim is originally cognizable in the first instance by the administrative body alone, while primary jurisdiction applies where the case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court & administrative agency but the case requires determination of some technical or factual matter xxx.

Increase in water rates by LWD is subject to review & approval by LWUA. After LWUA reviews the rate established by a LWD, a water concessionaire may appeal the same to the NWRB whose decision may then be appealed to the Office of the President (Merida Water Dist. vs. Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204) Third party claim before the court was for recovery of possession & injunction, but it was in essence an action questioning the validity of levy in the labor case, hence, an incident of the labor case. RTC cannot enjoin the NLRC (Deltaventures Resources vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA 522).

OSP is merely a component of OMB and may only act under the supervision & control of OMB (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 717). The review as an act of supervision & control by DOJ Secretary over fiscals finds basis in this doctrine. He may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. RSP has administrative supervision, not control, over CPs and PPs (Aurillo vs. Rabi, 392 SCRA 604). Protests re CARP implementation are under exclusive jurisdiction of DAR Secretary (DAR vs. PCPI, 564 SCRA 80).

Appeal the reassignment order of RM to NIA Administrator & if necessary, to CSC (Corsiga vs. Defensor, 391 SCRA 274). Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of admin remedies when it went directly to CA on a petition for certiorari & prohibition from the NTC Order without first filing a MR w/in 15 days pursuant to NTC Rules. That the NTC Order became immediately executory does not mean foreclosure of remedy of filing MR (Rep. vs. Extelcom, 373 SCRA 321).

Under Sec. 4 of Rule 43 of Rules of Court, an appeal (thru petition for review before CA), shall be taken w/in 15 days from the date of the denial of the first and only MR. The filing of the second MR by SEC before the OP did not toll the running of the period to file a petition for review before the CA, w/c expired 15 days after petitioner SEC received the OP Resolution denying the first MR of the SEC and upholding the position of PICOP (SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 451).

Appeal the monetary award of the DOLE Reg. Director to the Labor Secretary (Laguna CATV vs. Maraan, 392 SCRA 226). Submission of dispute to Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for amicable settlement under Sec. 408 LGC (Berba vs. Pablo, 474 SCRA 686). TACC should have appealed the LLDA Order, imposing penalty of P1.062M for its pollutive wastewater discharge, to the DENR Secretary in view of the transfer of LLDA to DENR thru the Pollution Adjudication Board for administrative supervision, before filing a petition for certiorari in the CA (The Alexandra Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 453).

Distinction: Exhaustion of Admin Remedies & Due Process

Exhaustion principle is based on the perspective of the ruling tribunal, while due process is considered from the viewpoint of the litigating party against whom a ruling was made. The commonality they share is in the same opportunity that underlies both, i.e. opportunity for the ruling tribunal to reexamine its findings and opportunity for the party to be heard.

Cases where a prior MR is not necessary

a. the order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal has no jurisdiction; b. there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question & any further delay would prejudice the interests of Government or of the petitioner; c. deprivation of due process & there is urgency for relief; d. issue is purely legal; e. public interest is involved.

Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies

Whether respondents transfer to the position of Regional Director of PAO, which was made w/o her consent, amounts to removal without cause is a legal issue (Demaisip vs. Bacal, 12/06/00). Whether the memo of ARMM Governor, ordering the reinstatement of petitioner already declared AWOL & dropped from the rolls, was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal question (Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 75).

Whether or not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by a private citizen vs. him is a legal question (Lastimoso vs. Senior Insp. Asayo, 06 March 2007) Where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter (Quisumbing vs. Gumban, 193 SCRA 523) Where the doctrine of qualified political agency applies (Binamira vs. Garucho, 190 SCRA 154)

Whether or not petitioners dismissal from the service is the proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful & immoral conduct is a question of law (Castro vs. Gloria, 363 SCRA 423) Where petitioner is not asking for the reversal of the policies of PCST nor demanding that she be allowed to take the final exams (Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology, 443 SCRA 56). Sabello vs. DECS, 12/26/89

There is estoppel on the part of the party invoking it. There is unreasonable delay of official action that will irreparably prejudice the complainant. There is no plain, adequate and speedy remedy except court action. The land in question is private. The amount is too small so as to make the rule impractical. There is nothing left to be done except court action.

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

In the absence of a constitutional proviso or statute to the contrary, official acts of a dept secretary are deemed acts of the President unless All executive & administrative organizations are adjuncts of Exec. Dept. Power of DILG to investigate admin complaints is based on this doctrine. Authority of the Executive Secretary to reverse Decision of Director Doctrine is not applicable to OMB.

The authority of the DENR technical team which conducted the survey emanated from the Special Order issued by the DENR Secretary, the alter ego of the President. His acts are presumed to be the acts of the President, unless repudiated by the latter (Province of Camarines Norte vs. Province of Quezon, 367 SCRA 91).

Department Secretaries cannot delegate their duties as members of NPB, much less their power to vote & approve board resolutions (NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assn. vs. NPC, 503 SCRA 138). DENR Secretarys Order transferring the regional office from Cotabato City to Koronadal City is deemed the Presidents act. As Executive head, the Pres. has continuing authority to reorganize any agency of the Exec. branch. This power may be delegated to his cabinet members (DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees,409 SCRA 359).

Principle of Presidential Power of Control

Presidents power over the executive branch of government, including all executive officers (Sec. 17, Art. Vll) Power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his duties & to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter. Reorganization of DOH under EO 102: not a usurpation of legislative power. EO 292 gives continuing authority to the President to reorganize the admin structure of the OP (Tondo Medical Center Employees Assn. vs. CA, 527 SCRA 748).

There is nothing unconstitutional if the President directs the development of housing project w/o DENR authorization to reclaim the land but makes DENR a member of the implementing committee. The President can exercise executive power motu proprio. The ultimate power over alienable & disposable public land (Smokey Mountain) is reposed in the President & not the DENR Secretary (Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241). Distinguishing power of control from power of supervision (Bito-onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732)

Presidents Power of General Supervision

ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or the subordinate acts within the law not incompatible with power to discipline which includes power to investigate Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases vs. elective local officials lodged in two authorities: Disciplining Authority and Investigating Authority

Presidents power of general supervision extends to the Liga ng mga Barangay. The representatives of the Liga sit in an ex officio capacity at the municipal, city & provincial sanggunians. Liga is the vehicle thru w/c the barangay participates in enactment of ordinances (Bito-Onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732). The Liga ng mga Barangay is not subject to control by Chief Executive or his alter ego. The acts of the DILG in nullifying results of Liga elections & appointing Rayos as Pres. of Liga-Caloocan went beyond supervision (David vs. Paredes, 439 SCRA 130).

Findings of Facts
General rule and exceptions (p.26) Bautista vs. Araneta, 326 SCRA 234 (tenancy issue) Fabian vs. Agustin, 14 February 2003 (conflicting factual findings) The issue of whether or not petitioner is an alter ego of Milagros Matuguina, the losing party in the MNR case, is one of fact, and should be threshed out in said admin proceedings & not in prohibition proceedings in court (Matuguina Wood Products vs. CA, 263 SCRA 508).

When may courts review administrative decisions?

determine constitutionality of a law, treaty or order determine jurisdiction of admin body Determine any other question of law determine question of fact when necessary to determine either a constitutional or jurisdictional issue, the commission of abuse of authority, or error of law.

All errors or decisions of admin bodies involving questions of law are subject to judicial review under Sec. 5 (2e), Art. Vlll of Constitution. Principle that only questions of law shall be raised in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 admits of exceptions, namely: 1. findings are grounded entirely on speculations or conjectures; 2. inference made is manifestly mistaken; 3. there is grave abuse of discretion;

4. the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; 5. the findings of facts are conflicting; 6. the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on w/c they are based; 7. findings of facts are premised on the supposed absence of evidence but contradicted by the evidence on record (Bernaldo vs. Ombudsman, 562 SCRA 60). Here, the OMB decision vs. Bernaldo was not supported by substantial evidence.

Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper grounds in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Such petition will prosper only if there is showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act w/o or in excess of jurisdiction of admin tribunal. Requisites for petition for certiorari to proper: Petitioner TACC must show that a. LLDA acted w/o or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and b. there is no appeal or a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The plain & adequate remedy is a MR of the assailed decision (Alexandra Condo. Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 455).

Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to judicial review (Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts). This doctrine states that when a finding of fact is so intimately involved and dependent upon a question of law, the court will, in order to resolve the question of law, examine the factual setting including the evidence adduced thereto. The more important issue, which is of law, assimilates the facts.

The PEA decision to dismiss petitioners from the service, upon recommendation of PAGC as approved by the President after due proceedings, should have been appealed to the CSC under EO 292. From CSC, it can be elevated to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. From there, it can be appealed to the SC thru a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (Lacson vs. PEA & PAGC, 30 May 2011)

Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil immunities to persons unless the law explicitly confers such power PCGG under EO 14A Apply Art 2028, Civil Code: amicable settlement in civil cases applicable to PCGG cases OMB under Sec. 17 of RA 6770

Three-fold Responsibility
A public official may be held civilly, criminally and administratively liable for violation of duty or for a wrongful act or omission. These remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively. Defeat of any of the three remedies will not necessarily preclude resort to other remedies or affect decisions reached thereat, as different degrees of evidence are required in these several actions.

Rule: Admin cases are independent from criminal cases. The former will not govern or affect the latter or vice versa. Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final administrative determination (Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232). One such law is in the prosecution of unfair labor practice under the Labor Code where no criminal prosecution for ULP can be instituted without a final judgment in a previous administrative proceeding. Where the law is silent on the matter, the fundamental principle that admin cases are independent from criminal cases fully applies.

A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts are attendant in the admin proceedings (Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406). Absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence for there is another class of evidence w/c, though insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in admin cases (Ocampo vs. Ombudsman, 322 SCRA 22). In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof of guilt is at the highest level, followed by clear & convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence.

Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria vs. Sunga , 368 SCRA 551) Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the discretion given to the OMB. The OMB may not conduct admin investigation if the complaint was filed after 1 year from occurrence of the act or omission complained of (Melchor vs. Gironella, 451 SCRA 476). Object sought is not punishment of the officer but improvement of public service & preservation of public faith & confidence. While complaint was filed more than 7 yrs. after commission, OMB may still investigate (Omb. vs. De Sahagun, 562 SCRA 123).

The death or retirement of officer from the service does not preclude a finding of administrative liability to which he shall be answerable. Jurisdiction over the admin complaint was not lost by mere fact of respondent Caubes death during pendency of the admin case. The tribunal retains jurisdiction to pronounce him innocent or guilty (Exec. Judge Loyao vs. Caube, 402 SCRA 33).

The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of complainant will not automatically result to dismissal of admin case. Complainant is a mere witness xxx Rule on anonymous complaints Under Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation, elective officials cannot be subject to disciplinary action for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term. Reasons for the rule. Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer seeking elective office (Ombudsman vs. Torres, 566 SCRA 365)

Aggrieved Party who may appeal the administrative decision

Sec.39(a), PD 807: Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision x x x. CSC as aggrieved party may appeal the CA decision to SC. By this ruling, SC abandoned & overruled prior decisions that the Civil Service Law does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating public officers from administrative charges (CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426).

CSC decides on appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than 30 days, or a fine in an amount exceeding 30 days salary, demotion, transfer or dismissal from service (Sec. 37 PD 807) A party may elevate a decision of CSC before the CA thru petition for review under Rule 43 of Revised Rules of Court. The Ombudsman has clear legal interest to intervene in the petition for review on certiorari before the CA (OMB vs. Samaniego, 564 SCRA 569).

Gen. Rule: Decisions of administrative agencies have, upon their finality, the binding effect of a final judgment w/in purview of res judicata doctrine. Exceptions to the res judicata doctrine: a. supervening events make it imperative to modify a final judgment to harmonize it with prevailing circumstances. b. its application would sacrifice justice to technicality. c. parties involved waived it or do not timely raised it as a defense. d. issue of citizenship

Sec. 6, Art. XVl of 1987 Constitution Authority of local chief executives: one of operational control & supervision (Sec. 62 RA 8551) Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon citizens complaint under Sec. 42 of RA 6975 is concurrent with PNP Chief/regional directors under Sec. 45. Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOM thru NAB and RAB Appeals from decision of NAPOLCOM should be with DILG and then with CSC.

Criminal cases involving PNP members are w/in exclusive jurisdiction of regular courts. Courts-martial are not courts but are instrumentalities of executive power. Regional Police Director has prerogative to name the 5 eligibles for position of city police chief (3 for provincial police chief) from a pool of eligible officers screened by the Senior Officers Promotion & Selection Board of the PNP w/o interference from local executives. The mayor has limited power to select one from among the list of eligibles as police chief (Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA 696).

An Act Strengthening Civilian Supremacy over the Military by Returning to Civil Courts the Jurisdiction over Certain Offenses involving AFP Members, Other Persons Subject to Military Law (RA 7055) General Rule: AFP members & other persons subject to military law, who commit crimes penalized under RPC (like coup detat), other special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court.

Exception: Where the civil court, before arraignment, has determined the offense to be service connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial. Exception to the exception: Where the President, in the interest of justice, directs before arraignment that any such crime shall be tried by the proper civil court.

Service-connected offenses are limited to those defined in the Articles of War (CA 408), violations of which are triable by courts martial. The delineation of jurisdiction between civil courts and courts martial over crimes committed by military personnel is necessary to preserve the peculiar nature of military justice system, which is aimed at achieving the highest form of discipline to ensure the highest degree of military efficiency. The charge vs. petitioners concerns their alleged violation of their solemn oath to defend the Constitution & the duly constituted authorities, w/c is service-connected (Lt. Gonzales et al vs. Abaya, 498 SCRA 446).

OSG (PD 478; Bk lV, Admin Code)

Gen. Rule: Solicitor General is the lawyer of the government, its agencies & officials. He represents a public official in all civil, criminal & special proceedings, when such proceedings arise from the latters acts in his official capacity. Rule: Actions in the name of the RP or its instrumentality, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed. Exceptions: 1. When the government office is adversely affected by contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept. 1990) 2. SolGen deputizes legal officers xxx (Sec. 35, Ch. 123. Bk lV, EO 292)

Gen. Rule: SolGen can represent a public official in all civil, criminal and special proceedings when such proceedings arise from the latters acts in his official capacity. Exception: Such official or agent is being charged criminally or being sued civilly for damages arising from a felon.

The mention of petitioners name in the complaint for damages w/the RTC as the Director of Telcom, arising from the alleged malicious administrative suit vs. respondent Raymundo, does not transform the action into one vs. him in his official capacity (Dir. Pascual vs. Judge Beltran, 505 SCRA 559). OSG cannot represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case or in a civil case for damages arising from a felony. A public official sued in a criminal case is actually sued in his personal capacity since the State can never be the author of a wrongful act. Similarly, any pecuniary liability an official may be hold to account in the civil suit is for his own account (Urbano vs. Chavez & Co vs. Chavez, 183 SCRA 347).

Copies of orders served on the deputized special attorney, acting as agent of the SolGen, are not binding until they are received by him. The proper basis for computing the reglementary period to file an appeal is service on OSG (NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 706). The unauthorized filing of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 by RP thru PCGG w/o OSG participation re OMB dismissal of graft case vs. Cojuangco et al. was ratified, and the defect was cured, when OSG signed when OSG signed as cocounsel for the Republic in its Consolidated Reply (Republic vs. Desierto, 389 SCRA 452).

Ombudsman Constitutional Mandate

As protector of the people, OMB has the power, function and duty to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials and to investigate any act or omission of any public official when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Need for Prompt Action

Delay of 3 years in PI violates accuseds right to due process xxx (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70) Angchangco vs. OMB, 13 February 1997 Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases extends to all parties in all cases & in all proceedings, including judicial & quasijudicial hearings (Ombudsman vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135). No violation of due process here. [FFI in 1992; admin case in 1997 and decision in 1999 6 mos. suspension of Customs employee for neglect of duty]

Cases on OMB Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance & nonfeasance committed by any officer during his tenure of office (Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545). OMB is clothed w/authority to conduct PI & to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers & employees, not only w/in the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, but those w/in jurisdiction of regular courts (Uy vs. Ombudsman, 03/20/01).

OMB authority is shared or concurrent with similarly authorized govt agencies (Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 637). DOJ Panel is not precluded from investigating the case, but if the case falls under exclusive jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, then OMB may in exercise of its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage the investigation of such case (Honasan vs. DOJ Panel , 04/13/04). A money claim vs. a councilor is w/in jurisdiction of court, not the OMB (Orcullo vs. Gervacio, 314 SCRA 452).

Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority?

Impeachable Officials * In re: Raul M. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 Members of Congress (Sec. 16, Art. Vl) OMB vs. Mojica, 452 SCRA 714 Judiciary (Sec. 6, Art. Vlll) * Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 46 * Caoibes vs. Alumbres, 07/19/01 * Fuentes vs. Ombudsman, 368 SCRA 36 * Garcia vs. Miro, 582 SCRA 127 (2009)

Formal Administrative Investigation

Verified written complaint shall be accompanied by Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping (Rule III, Sec. 3, AO No. 07). Concurrent Jurisdiction *Laxina, Sr. vs. Ombudsman, 471 SCRA 544 Referral of certain complaints to the proper disciplinary authority (Sec. 23(2), RA 6770) Magna Carta Act for Public School Teachers (RA 4670) Higher Education Modernization Act (RA 8282) *CSC vs. Sojor, 05/22/08

Cases on Preventive Suspension

Meaning of phrase under his authority in RA 6770 (Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207). The moment a criminal or admin complaint is filed w/the OMB, the respondent is deemed to be in his authority & he can proceed to determine whether said respondent should be placed under preventive suspension. Preventive suspension period cannot be credited to whatever penalty that may be meted out (Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 233 SCRA 311)

Being a mere order for preventive suspension, the questioned OMB order was validly issued even w/o a full blown hearing & the formal presentation of evidence by the parties (Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 646). Power to preventively suspend is granted only to the Ombudsman & Deputy Ombudsmen, and not the Special Prosecutor. Although substantially equal in their respective functions, those occupying the same rank do not necessarily have the same powers nor perform the same functions (OMB vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 718).

Administrative Adjudication, how conducted (AO No. 17)

Filing of pleadings/ position papers. Clarificatory hearings (discretionary) Non-litigious ; technicalities of law, procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. Parties are allowed the assistance of counsel; due process clause does not encompass right to be assisted by counsel (Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125)

Finality and Execution of Administrative Decision

Under Sec. 27 of RA 6770, the decision is final, executory and unappealable if respondent is acquitted, or penalty is reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or fine equivalent to one month salary. This provision is constitutional & not tantamount to deprivation of property without due process of law. Essence of due process is simply opportunity to be heard. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process (Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753). In all other cases, the appeal from the OMB decision is to the Court of Appeals on verified petition for review within 15 days.

Appeal in a petition for review under Rule 43 is not allowed in an exoneration situation under the Ombudsman Act. Here, SC liberally applied Rules of Court & recognized respondents CA petition under Rule 43 as having the effect of a Rule 65 petition grounded on the grave abuse of discretion committed by OMB (Reyes vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 31).

The remedy from the Ombudsmans decisions in administrative case imposing only the penalties of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than 30 days, or a fine equivalent to 1 months salary, which decisions are final and unappealable, is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 43, before the Court of Appeals (Ruivivar vs. Ombudsman, 565 SCRA 324).

Effect of Appeal on Administrative Decision

An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case penalty is suspension or removal and respondent wins the appeal, he shall be considered as being under preventive suspension and he shall be paid the salary (OMB Administrative Order No. 17 dated 09/07/03). A decision of the Ombudsman shall be executed as a matter of course. Failure or refusal to comply with the OMB Order shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

Immediate Execution of Administrative Decisions

Decision of OMB imposing six months suspension without pay upon Mayor Buencamino for abuse of authority is immediately executory under AO No. 17 of the OMB (Buencamino vs. CA, 4/12/07). OMB decision is immediately executory pending appeal & may not be stayed by the filing of appeal or the issuance of injunctive writ (AO # 17). This provision is a special rule that prevails over the provisions of the Rules of Court (Sec. 12 Rule 43) w/c provides: The appeal shall not stay the judgment,final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just (Ombudsman vs. Samaniego, 10/05/10).

Preliminary Investigation
DOJ prosecutors may investigate cases against public officials in their capacity as either Deputized Ombudsman Prosecutors or regular prosecutors. However, the choice has been made in favor of the former capacity (as Deputized OMB Prosecutor) in the OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-01, which together with AO No. 08, provides for automatic deputization. OMB retains control and supervision if the charge vs. the public officer is related to his office. DOJ Prosecutors rule with finality if the charge is not related to office.

The Court, recognizing the investigatory & prosecutory powers granted to the OMB by the Constitution & for practicality, will not interfere nor pass upon its findings. It will not review the exercise of discretion by prosecutors each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint (Ocampo vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725).

Cases on Preliminary Investigation

Petitioners may not compel OMB to order the production of certain documents if in his judgment such are not necessary to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused (Mamburao vs. Ombudsman, 344 SCRA 818). Court cannot compel testimonies of witnesses & production of documents if in OMBs sound judgment, these pieces of evidence are not necessary to establish probable cause (Villanueva vs. Ople, 475 SCRA 542).

However, where there appears grave abuse of discretion on the part of OMB in dismissing the case, the Court reversed the OMB dismissal & directed the filing of information vs. Disini et al. (PCGG vs. Desierto, 01/22/07). A COA Special Audit Report is not equivalent to the affidavits required under the OMB Rules of Procedure for the conduct of PI. When he was asked to file a comment thereto, he was already subjected to PI without being so informed (Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721). Duterte ruling does not apply where the PI is based on COA Audit Report and affidavits of auditors. That the nominal complainant already resigned is not fatal. The real complainant is the State, represented by OMB & COA (Garcia vs. Primo, 397 SCRA 41).

Effect on OMB re COAs Non-Finding of Liability

COAs approval of a government officials disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does not foreclose the Ombudsmans authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for which such official is answerable. While COA may regard the official to have substantially complied with its accounting rules, this fact is not sufficient to dismiss the criminal case. (Aguinaldo vs. Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121)

The fact that petitioners accounts and vouchers had passed in audit is no ground to enjoin the fiscal from conducting PI to determine their criminal liability for malversation. A finding of probable cause does not derive its veracity from the COA findings but from the OMBs independent determination (Dimayuga vs. OMB, 20 July 2006).

Remedies from a probable cause finding

Only one MR or reinvestigation is allowed within five (5) days from notice, with leave of court where information has already been filed in court. Validity of information is not affected by lack of notice of adverse resolution to the respondent (Kuizon vs. Desierto, 354 SCRA 158). The filing of MR/reinvestigation does not prevent the immediate filing of information in court (Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116).

Remedy of aggrieved party from resolution of OMB finding probable cause in the criminal case, when tainted w/grave abuse of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari with the Supreme Court and not w/CA (Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman, 380 SCRA 325). Where the aggrieved party questions the OMBs finding of lack of probable cause, there is also the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with the Supreme Court & not with CA (Estrada vs. Desierto, 445 SCRA 655).

Court of Appeals; No Authority Over OMB Resolutions in Criminal Cases.

The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the OMB in administrative disciplinary cases only it cannot review the orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. Since the CA has no jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling directing the withdrawal of the criminal case filed by the Ombudsman before the RTC against respondent POEA employee Fung is void (Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321).

Forfeiture Proceedings for ill-gotten wealth

PCGG is empowered to bring proceedings for forfeiture of property allegedly unlawfully acquired before Feb. 25, 1986, while power to investigate ill-gotten wealth acquired after said date is vested in the Ombudsman (Rep. vs. Sandiganbayan, 237 SCRA 242).

The Ombudsman is without authority to initiate forfeiture proceedings for recovery of ill-gotten or unexplained wealth amassed prior to 2/25/86. However, the Ombudsman has authority to investigate cases for forfeiture or recovery of such illgotten wealth amassed even before said date pursuant to his general investigatory power under Sec. 15(1) of RA 6770 (Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 625 SCRA 13).

Constitutional mandate (Art. lX-D, Sec.2) 1. examine, audit & settle all accounts pertaining to revenue & receipts of, & expenditures or uses of funds & property owned or held in trust by the Government. 2. promulgate rules for prevention & disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and property. COAs jurisdiction covers all government offices, bureaus & agencies, including GOCCs & even non-government entities enjoying subsidy from the government.


COA does not have sole & exclusive jurisdiction to examine & audit government banks. The Central Bank has concurrent jurisdiction to examine audit government banks, but COA audit prevails over that of the CB since the COA is the constitutionally mandated auditor of government banks. Also, the CB is devoid of authority to allow or disallow expenditures of government banks since this function belongs exclusively to the COA (DBP vs. COA, 373 SCRA 356).

COA cannot disallow the payment of back wages to employees, which had been decreed pursuant to a final CSC decision (Cagatin vs. COA, 21 March 2000). COA can disallow extension of NHAs foreign consultants services for being an unnecessary expense of public funds (NHA vs. COA, 226 SCRA 65). COA classification as to who were entitled to the social amelioration benefits & excluding therefrom those SRA employees hired after 10/31/89 has no legal basis (Cruz vs. COA, 368 SCRA 85).

End Good Luck!