Atty Salumbides V Ombudsman

ATTY SALUMBIDES v.
OMBUDSMAN
FACTS
- Salumbides and Glenda were appointed in July 2001 as Municipal Legal Officer/Administrator and Municipal Budget Officer,
respectively, of Tagkawayan, Quezon.
-end of 2001 - Mayor Vicente Salumbides III (the mayor) saw the urgent need to construct a two-classroom building with fence (the
projects) for the Tagkawayan Municipal High School[2] (TMHS) since the public school in the poblacion area would no longer admit
high school freshmen starting school year 2002-2003.
- the mayor consulted Salumbides who suggested that the construction of the two-classroom building be charged to the account of
the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses/ Repair and Maintenance of Facilities (MOOE/RMF) and implemented by
administration, as had been done in a previous classroom building project of the former mayor.
- however, Glenda advised Salumbides in December 2001, that there were no more available funds that could be taken from the
MOOE/RMF, but the savings of the municipal government were enough to fund the projects, but the approval by the Sangguniang
Bayan of a proposed supplemental budget must be secured.
- The members of the Sangguniang Bayan having already gone on recess for the Christmas holidays, Glenda and Salumbides advised
the mayor to source the funds from the P1,000,000 MOOE/RMF allocation in the approved Municipal Annual Budget for 2002.
- The mayor ordered on January 8, 2002 Municipal Engineer Jose Aquino (Aquino) to proceed with the construction of the projects
with a total cost estimate of P222,000.
- Municipal Planning and Development Officer Hernan Jason (Jason) advised the mayor to include the projects in the list of local
government projects scheduled for public bidding but such public bidding, failed.
- The construction of the projects commenced without any approved appropriation and ahead of the public bidding. Salumbides
was of the opinion that the projects were regular and legal, based on an earlier project that was implemented in the same manner,
using the same source of fund and for the same reason of urgency which was allowed because the building was considered merely
temporary as the TMHS is set to be transferred to an 8-hectare lot which the municipal government is presently negotiating to buy.
- Aquino suggested the adoption of model guidelines in the implementation of infrastructure projects to be executed by
administration, while Councilor Coleta Sandro (Coleta) sponsored a Resolution to ratify the projects and to authorize the mayor to
enter into a negotiated procurement. Both actions were not approved by the Sangguniang Bayan.
- Respondents, all members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tagkawayan then filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint
against the petitioners charging them with dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, conduct, prejudciial to the best
knterest of service and ciolation of the COA Rules ans the Local Government Code
- Ombudsman denied the prayer to place petitioners under preventive suspension pending investigation, denied the kotion for
reconsiderstion and dropped the Mayor and Coleta who are both elective officials as respondents for the 2004 elections have
mooted the case.
- the Ombudsman issued a subpoena duces tecum to require the regional officer of the COA to submit the post-audit report on the
projects but it claimed that the required documents were among those razed by fire on April 14, 2004 that hit the Office of the
Municipal Accountant where they were temporarily stored due to lack of space at the Provincial Auditors Office.
- the Ombudsman absolved Jason and Awuino and found the petitioners guilty of Simple Neglect of duty
st
1 ISSUE : WON the doctrine of condonation should be expanded to cover coterminous appointive officials who were
administratively charged along with the reelected official/appointing authority with infractions allegedly committed during their
preceding term.
HELD: No
- The electorates condonation of the previous administrative infractions of the reelected official cannot be extended to that of the
reappointed coterminous employees, the underlying basis of the rule being to uphold the will of the people expressed through the
ballot. In other words, there is neither subversion of the sovereign will nor disenfranchisement of the electorate to speak of, in the
case of reappointed coterminous employees.
- It is the will of the populace, not the whim of one person who happens to be the appointing authority, that could extinguish an
administrative liability. Since petitioners hold appointive positions, they cannot claim the mandate of the electorate. The people
cannot be charged with the presumption of full knowledge of the life and character of each and every probable appointee of the
elective official ahead of the latters actual reelection.
- Moreover, the unwarranted expansion of the Pascual doctrine would set a dangerous precedent as it would, as respondents posit,
provide civil servants, particularly local government employees, with blanket immunity from administrative liability that would
spawn and breed abuse in the bureaucracy.
ND
2 Issue : WON Petitioners committed simple neglect of duty.

Held: YES
- Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either
carelessness or indifference. In the present case, petitioners fell short of the reasonable diligence required of them, for failing to
exercise due care and prudence in ascertaining the legal requirements and fiscal soundness of the projects before stamping their
imprimatur and giving their advice to their superior.
- Simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six
months. Finding no alleged or established circumstance to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty of six months, the Court
finds the imposition of suspension without pay for three months justified.
- When a public officer takes an oath of office, he or she binds himself or herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and
use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer
is to use that prudence, caution, and attention which careful persons use in the management of their affairs.
- Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of
honesty and dedication to duty. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, public officers and employees must faithfully
adhere to hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; and must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.

Atty Salumbides V Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty Salumbides V Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty Salumbides V Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATTY SALUMBIDES v.

2 Issue : WON Petitioners committed simple neglect of duty.

You might also like