Power of Ombudsman to dismiss erring public officials or employees

G.R. No. 173268

ERNESTO A. FAJARDO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
Respondents.
August 23, 2012

FACTS: Ernesto A. Fajardo (Fajardo) was employed by Bureau of Customs

(BOC) as a Clerk. However, due to the exigency of the service, he was
designated as a Special Collecting Officer at the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport (NAIA) Customs House, Collection Division.
An audit report conducted by Nancy Marco (Marco), a Commission on
Audit (COA) noticed that Fajardo has an unremitted collection from sales of
accountable forms with money value and stamps in the amount of ₱
20,118,355.00. Upon further investigation by State Auditor Marco, it was
discovered that based on the analysis of the monthly sales of accountable
forms and stamps, failed to remit the total amount of ₱ 53,214,258.00 .
A “Sinumpaang Salaysay” was executed by NAIA auditors stating
Fajardo’s failure to remit the amount of ₱ 53,214,258.00. Thereafter, an
Information for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7080 (Plunder) was filed
against Fajardo.
The Office of the Ombudsman found Fajardo guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct and is meted the corresponding penalty of dismissal from service
including all its accessory penalties and without prejudice to criminal
prosecution.
Fajardo contends that the Ombudsman in dismissing him from service
disregarded Section 13, subparagraph 3, Article XI of the Constitution as well
as Section 15(3) of RA No. 6770 which only vests in the Ombudsman the
power to recommend the removal of a public official or employee.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss erring
public officials or employees.

RULING: It is already well-settled that "the power of the Ombudsman to

determine and impose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory
but actually mandatory." As we have explained in Atty. Ledesma v. Court of
Appeals, the fact "that the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to
comply with the order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or
employee is a ground for disciplinary action under Section 15(3) of RA No.
6770; is a strong indication that the Ombudsman's 'recommendation' is not
merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of
law."