Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Domingo Vs OMB

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    1) Sangguniang Kabataan officials filed a complaint against a Barangay Chairman and Treasurer for misappropriation of funds and falsifying documents. 2) The Office of the Ombudsman found the Barangay Chairman guilty of violating Section 4(b) of the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Public Officials by failing to perform duties with the highest degree of professionalism. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Barangay Chairman, finding that a violation of Section 4(b) was not one of the specific grounds for administrative sanction under the law and that he was denied due process since the charge was not included in the original complaint

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Domingo Vs OMB

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    49 views2 pages
    1) Sangguniang Kabataan officials filed a complaint against a Barangay Chairman and Treasurer for misappropriation of funds and falsifying documents. 2) The Office of the Ombudsman found the Barangay Chairman guilty of violating Section 4(b) of the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Public Officials by failing to perform duties with the highest degree of professionalism. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Barangay Chairman, finding that a violation of Section 4(b) was not one of the specific grounds for administrative sanction under the law and that he was denied due process since the charge was not included in the original complaint

    Original Title

    Domingo vs OMB

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Sangguniang Kabataan officials filed a complaint against a Barangay Chairman and Treasurer for misappropriation of funds and falsifying documents. 2) The Office of the Ombudsman found the Barangay Chairman guilty of violating Section 4(b) of the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Public Officials by failing to perform duties with the highest degree of professionalism. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Barangay Chairman, finding that a violation of Section 4(b) was not one of the specific grounds for administrative sanction under the law and that he was denied due process since the charge was not included in the original complaint

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    49 views2 pages

    Domingo Vs OMB

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    1) Sangguniang Kabataan officials filed a complaint against a Barangay Chairman and Treasurer for misappropriation of funds and falsifying documents. 2) The Office of the Ombudsman found the Barangay Chairman guilty of violating Section 4(b) of the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Public Officials by failing to perform duties with the highest degree of professionalism. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Barangay Chairman, finding that a violation of Section 4(b) was not one of the specific grounds for administrative sanction under the law and that he was denied due process since the charge was not included in the original complaint

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    case no.

    110

    DOMINGO vs OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN


    G.R. No. 176127
    January 30, 2009
    Art. III

    FACTS:

    The Sangguniang Kabataan officials, herein respondents Kathryn Joy Paguio, Allan Jay
    Esguerra and Neil Patrick Celis filed a complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman against Barangay
    Chairman Rodomen Domingo and Barangay Treasurer Fe Lao of Barangay 686, Zone 75, District V,
    Manila for malversation, falsification of public document, dishonesty, and grave misconduct.
    Petitioners alleged that in 2002, the petitioner and Lao misappropriated the cash advance taken by the
    respondents from the SK funds amounting to PhP16,784. In 2003, respondents alleged that petitioner
    gave a false statement in his Justification stating that his barangay had no incumbent SK officials.

    The OMB ruled that petitioner is guilty of violating Section 4(b) of Republic Act 6713 and shall
    receive a penalty of suspension from office for a period of six months. The charge on dishonesty for the
    alleged misappropriation of public funds and the charge for misappropriation were dismissed for being
    premature because the audit of the subject barangay transaction has not been concluded by the Office
    of the City Auditor. It also dismissed the charge on falsification of a public document because the
    documents pertaining to the authenticity of a signature in a document necessitates a judicial
    determination. What the OMB charged the petitioner with is the irregular submission of a falsified
    instrument to the Manila Barangay Bureau.

    Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to the OMB, but the same was denied. Thereafter,
    he filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, but the CA only affirmed the OMB’s petition in
    toto. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not petitioner is indeed in violation of Section 4(b) of Republic Act 6713

    RATIO + RULING:

    NO.
    Section 4(b) of RA 6713 provides that “public officials and employees shall perform and
    discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill.” It
    reiterates "professionalism as an ideal norm of conduct to be observed by public servants, in addition to
    commitment to public interest, justness and sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to the public,
    nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy and simple living”. In line with this, Rule V of
    the Implementing Rules of the said RA provides that incentives and rewards shall be granted to
    officials and employees who show exemplary service and conduct, in observance of Section 4. Said
    Implementing Rules, however, do not provide for sanctions should the official or employee fail to
    observe this. Furthermore, Rule X lays down 23 acts or omissions as grounds for administrative
    disciplinary action, but failure to observe Section 4(b) is not one of those listed.
    Prepared by: Cheza Marie D. Biliran 1
    case no. 110

    The Court therefore ruled that there is denial in due process in this case. It is a requirement in
    due process that every accused by informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and the
    evidence used to support such charge, so that he can present his own evidence. The original complaint-
    affidavit filed by the respondents show that the charges were for malversation, falsification, dishonesty
    and grave misconduct. Nowhere in the charge was it presented that he was in violation of Section 4(b)
    of RA 6713.

    The petition is GRANTED.

    Prepared by: Cheza Marie D. Biliran 2

    You might also like