Gonzales vs Office of the President

ISSUE:

Does the Ombudsman have the power to discipline an remove his deputies and Special Prosecutors

FACTS:

Sometime in 2008, a formal charge for Grave Misconduct (robbery, grave threats, robbery extortion and physical
injuries) was filed before the Philippine National Police-National Capital Region (PNP-NCR) against Manila Police
District Senior Inspector (P/S Insp.) Rolando Mendoza, and four others. A similar charge was filed by the private
complainant, Christian M. Kalaw, before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Manila, docketed as I.S. No. 08E-09512.
Meanwhile, on August 26, 2008, I.S. No. 08E-09512 was dismissed upon a finding that the material allegations made
by the complainant had not been substantiated "by any evidence at all to warrant the indictment of respondents of
the offenses charged."

On November 5, 2009, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Decision, followed by a Supplement Ombudsman vs Capulong
to the Motion for Reconsideration on November 19, 2009

By allowing Mendoza's motion for reconsideration to languish for nine long (9) months without any justification, ISSUE:
Ombudsman Gutierrez and Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales committed complete and wanton violation of the
Did Capulong’s non-disclosure of his wife’s business interest in his SALN constitute serious dishonesty or grave
Ombudsman prescribed rule to resolve motions for reconsideration in administrative disciplinary cases within five (5)
misconduct?
days from submission (Sec. 8, Ombudsman Rules of Procedure). The inaction is gross, there being no opposition to
the motion for reconsideration.

RULING:
Yes, the Ombudsman is possessed of jurisdiction to discipline his own people and mete out administrative sanctions
upon them, including the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service. However, it is equally without question that
the President has concurrent authority with respect to removal from office of the Deputy Ombudsman and Special
Prosecutor, albeit under specified conditions. Considering the principles attending concurrence of jurisdiction where
the Office of the President was the first to initiate a case against petitioner Gonzales, prudence should have
prompted the Ombudsman to desist from proceeding separately against petitioner through its Internal Affairs Board,
and to defer instead to the President's assumption of authority, especially when the administrative charge involved
"demanding and soliciting a sum of money" which constitutes either graft and corruption or bribery, both of which
are grounds reserved for the President's exercise of his authority to remove a Deputy Ombudsman.
FACTS:
The case arose from the Complaint-Affidavit4 for violation of Section 85 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 67136, Perjury
under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and serious dishonesty and grave misconduct under the Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service7, filed on July 27, 2009, before the Ombudsman, docketed as
OMB-C-C-09-0560-J (LSC) and OMB-C-A-09-0570-J (LSC), by Joselito P. Fangon, Acting Director of the General
Investigation Bureau of the Ombudsman, against respondent Jose T. Capulong (Capulong), Customs Operation
Officer V of the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
These charges were based on two particular acts: first, for failure to file the required Statements of Assets, Liabilities
and Net Worth (SALN) for calendar years 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1998; and second, for failure to disclose in his
SALNs for calendar years 1999 to 2004 his wife’s business interest in two corporations, namely, SYJ Realty
Corporation and Radsy Production, Inc. Accordingly, the Ombudsman issued an Order8 dated December 7, 2009
directing Capulong to file a counter-affidavit.
RULING:

No, the Court of Appeals held that: (a) the Ombudsman has lost its right to prosecute Capulong for non-filing of
SALNs because it had already prescribed in accordance with Act No. 3326(An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription
for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to
Run);and (b) the simple allegation of non-disclosure of Capulong’s spouse’s business interest does not constitute
gross misconduct and serious dishonesty since the complaint-affidavit failed to allege that the said non-disclosure
were deliberately done. Hence, there was absolutely no basis to warrant Capulong’s preventive suspension as it is
evident on the face of the complaint that there was nothing to support the same.