University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic
Case No. G. R. No. 159314
Case Name Estarija v Ranada
Ponente Quisumbing., J

RELEVANT FACTS

Respondent Ranada, member of Davao Pilot Association Inc (DPAI) and Davao Tugboat and Allied Services Inc
(DTASI) filed an administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
against petitioner Capt. Estarija, Harbor Master of Phil. Ports Authority (PPA) in Davao City.

Complaint alleged that Etarija issued berthing permits for all ships that dock in Davao Port and demanding money
for their approval and P5000 monthly contribution from DPAI. DPAI reported the extortion activities to NBI who
caught Estarija in possession of P5000 marked money thru entrapment operation it conducted.

Ombudsman ordered Etarija’s preventive suspension and filed a criminal case against him for violating RA 3019
(Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before RTC. Estarija denied the allegations adding that DPAI employee
Cagata informed him DPAI had payables to PPA. Estarija was hesitant receive the money from him in DPAI’s
office since DPAI had no pending transaction with PPA but still collected but never issued a receipt.. Estarija
added that the complaint was to exact vengeance against him due to some business fued Ranada encountered
with Estarija’s son.

Ombudsman ruled that Estarija was guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct ordering his dismissal from service
with forfeiture of benefits and disqualified him from re-employment in the government. Estarija filed an MR and
claimed unconstitutionality of the dismissal since the Ombudsman did not have the express power to remove
government officials who are not removable by impeachment; that its authority is merely recommendatory
under the Constitution making the Ombudsman Act of 1989 unconstitutional for adding powers not enumerated in
the Constitution. MR denied.

Estarija filed petition for review before CA which affirmed Ombudsman’s ruling saying that the constitutionality
issue was belatedly raised in MR and that petitioner failed to prove such breach.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
1) W/N there substantial
evidence to hold 1)
petitioner liable for The Ombudsman commented that petitioner’s guilt was based on evidence presented.
dishonesty and grave Records showed that petitioner was caught red-handed by NBI in a valid entrapment
misconduct – YES operation. When Estarija went to the office of Adrian Cagata to pick up the money, his
doing so was indicative of his willingness to commit the crime. SC noted that In an
2) W/N the issue of administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only
constitutionality of the substantial evidence, that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
Ombudsman Act was conclusion. Moreover, factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman when supported
timely raised by petitioner by substantial evidence are conclusive and such findings made by an administrative body
- YES which has acquired expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality.
3) W/N the power of the
Petitioner did not deny going to the DPAI office to collect the money. Since there was no
Ombudsman to directly
remove, suspend, pending transaction with PPA and DPAI, he had no reason to go to the office and get any
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

demote, fine or censure money. Plus he never issued a receipt. Thus, substantial evidence prove petitioner is liable
erring officials for grave misconduct. When there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsmans
unconstitutional - NO decision, that decision will not be overturned. The same findings prove his guilt of
dishonesty as well.

2)
CA erred in ruling that the constitutional question was not pleaded at the earliest
opportunity by petitioner.

The law requires that the question of constitutionality of a law must be raised at the
earliest opportunity for so that SC may exercise its power of judicial review (see notes for
requisites of judicial review). It was held that that the earliest opportunity to raise a
constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can
resolve the same, such that, if it was not raised in the pleadings before a competent court,
it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be
considered on appeal.

In this case, it was raised in his MR of the Ombudsman decision. Ombudsman had to
power to entertain such issue. Thus, when petitioner raised it before CA which is the
competent court, such issue was raised at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, this
Court may determine, in the exercise of sound discretion, the time when a constitutional
issue may be passed upon.

3)
Petitioner contends that Ombudsman only has powers enumerated under Section 13 of
Article XI Constitution which do not include power to remove a government official but
merely to recommend the action to an officer concerned. Ombudsman Act allowing
promulgation of its own rules of procedure and exercise other powers consistent with its
function is inconsistent with the constitution.
SC:
In passing Rep. Act No. 6770, Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with the
power to prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees to make him a
more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office.
Moreover, the legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him
to implement his own actions

Rep. Act No. 6770 is consistent with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.
They gave Congress the discretion to give the Ombudsman powers that are not merely
persuasive in character. He is likewise given disciplinary authority over all elective and
appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions except members of Congress
and the Judiciary.

The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13, Article XI
of the 1987 Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the
powers of the Ombudsman; Hence he has the constitutional power to directly remove
from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and
the Judiciary.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated February 12, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 62557 and Resolution dated July 28, 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

NOTES

When the issue of unconstitutionality of a legislative act is raised, the Court may exercise its power of judicial
review only if the following requisites are present: (1) an actual and appropriate case and controversy; (2) a
personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial
review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of
the case