0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
93 tayangan1 halaman
The Ombudsman found Petitioner Farida T. Lucero, a Clerk II for the LTO, guilty of dishonesty for issuing sixty-nine altered miscellaneous receipts. On appeal, the court upheld the finding of dishonesty but declared that the Ombudsman did not have the authority to order Lucero's dismissal from service. The issue is whether the Ombudsman has the power to remove public officials or employees in administrative cases. The ruling held that the Ombudsman Act authorizes the Ombudsman to impose penalties in administrative cases, including removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found at fault.
The Ombudsman found Petitioner Farida T. Lucero, a Clerk II for the LTO, guilty of dishonesty for issuing sixty-nine altered miscellaneous receipts. On appeal, the court upheld the finding of dishonesty but declared that the Ombudsman did not have the authority to order Lucero's dismissal from service. The issue is whether the Ombudsman has the power to remove public officials or employees in administrative cases. The ruling held that the Ombudsman Act authorizes the Ombudsman to impose penalties in administrative cases, including removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found at fault.
The Ombudsman found Petitioner Farida T. Lucero, a Clerk II for the LTO, guilty of dishonesty for issuing sixty-nine altered miscellaneous receipts. On appeal, the court upheld the finding of dishonesty but declared that the Ombudsman did not have the authority to order Lucero's dismissal from service. The issue is whether the Ombudsman has the power to remove public officials or employees in administrative cases. The ruling held that the Ombudsman Act authorizes the Ombudsman to impose penalties in administrative cases, including removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found at fault.
FACTS: Petitioner Farida T. Lucero was appointed as Clerk II of the LTO, was reassigned, by virtue of a e!orandu!, to assist the Regional Casier in collecting and receiving miscellaneous !ees"revenues. At the re"uest of the OIC#$egional %ire&tor 'orferio I( endo)a of the LTO, COA &ondu&ted an audit in the Cash Se&tion of the Operations %ivision of LTO, revealed Petitioner to ave issued si#t$%nine &6'( altered miscellaneous recei)ts. O!buds!an *+isayas, found the 'etitioner guilty of dishonesty( On a))eal, the appellate &ourt upheld the finding of the O!buds!an but declared tat te Ombudsman ad no autorit$ to order )etitioner*s dismissal !rom te service. ISS-.: /hether the O!buds!an is e!powered to order the re!oval of publi& offi&ials or e!ployees in ad!inistrative &ases( 0.L%: +,-. Te ombudsman act autori.es te ombudsman to im)ose )enalties in administrative cases. *1ernas, page 234, The Offi&e of the O!buds!an is e!powered not !erely to re&o!!end, but to i!pose the penalty of re!oval, suspension, de!otion, fine, &ensure, or prose&ution of a publi& offi&er or e!ployee found to be at fault(