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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Filipina Samson V. Julia A. Restrivera: G.R. No. 178454 - March 28, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Verbena Daguinod - Balagat
    The Ombudsman found a government officer from the Population Commission guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer for accepting P50,000 from a friend to help register the friend's land under the Torrens System but failing to do so or return the money. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over the case, even though the act was private in nature. While the officer could not be penalized under the law cited by the Ombudsman, she could still be disciplined for conduct unbecoming a public officer. The Court found the officer guilty of this charge and fined her P15,000 to be paid to the Ombudsman.

    Copyright:

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

    Filipina Samson V. Julia A. Restrivera: G.R. No. 178454 - March 28, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Verbena Daguinod - Balagat
    37 views1 page
    The Ombudsman found a government officer from the Population Commission guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer for accepting P50,000 from a friend to help register the friend's land under the Torrens System but failing to do so or return the money. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over the case, even though the act was private in nature. While the officer could not be penalized under the law cited by the Ombudsman, she could still be disciplined for conduct unbecoming a public officer. The Court found the officer guilty of this charge and fined her P15,000 to be paid to the Ombudsman.

    Original Title

    15.-GR-NO.-178454-ADMIN-LAW

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Ombudsman found a government officer from the Population Commission guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer for accepting P50,000 from a friend to help register the friend's land under the Torrens System but failing to do so or return the money. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over the case, even though the act was private in nature. While the officer could not be penalized under the law cited by the Ombudsman, she could still be disciplined for conduct unbecoming a public officer. The Court found the officer guilty of this charge and fined her P15,000 to be paid to the Ombudsman.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views1 page

    Filipina Samson V. Julia A. Restrivera: G.R. No. 178454 - March 28, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Verbena Daguinod - Balagat
    The Ombudsman found a government officer from the Population Commission guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer for accepting P50,000 from a friend to help register the friend's land under the Torrens System but failing to do so or return the money. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over the case, even though the act was private in nature. While the officer could not be penalized under the law cited by the Ombudsman, she could still be disciplined for conduct unbecoming a public officer. The Court found the officer guilty of this charge and fined her P15,000 to be paid to the Ombudsman.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FILIPINA SAMSON v. JULIA A.

    RESTRIVERA
    G.R. No. 178454 | March 28, 2011

    Facts

    Petitioner, a government officer from the Population Commission, agreed to help her friend,
    respondent Julia A. Restrivera, to have the latter’s land located in Carmona, Cavite, registered under the
    Torrens System. Petitioner said that the expenses would reach P150,000 and accepted P50,000 from
    respondent to cover the initial expenses for the titling of respondent’s land. However, petitioner failed to
    accomplish her task because it was found out that the land is government property. When petitioner failed
    to return theP50,000, respondent sued her for estafa. Respondent also filed an administrative complaint
    for grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a public officer against petitioner before the Office of the
    Ombudsman.

    The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of violating Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 and
    suspended her from office for six months without pay. It was reduced to three months suspension without
    pay. According to the Ombudsman, petitioner’s acceptance of respondent’s payment created a perception
    that petitioner is a fixer. Her act fell short of the standard of personal conduct required by Section 4(b) of
    R.A. No. 6713 that public officials shall endeavour to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as
    dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage. The CA affirmed, and added that contrary to petitioners’
    contentions, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction even if the act complained of is a private matter.

    Issues

    a. Whether or not the Ombudsman jurisdiction even if the act was private.

    b. Whether or not the proper offense been identified.

    Ruling

    Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman can investigate on
    its own or on complaint by any person any act or omission of any public official. Under Section 16of
    R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
    encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or
    employee during his/her tenure. Section 19 of R.A. No. 6770 also states that the Ombudsman shall act on
    all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are unfair or irregular. Thus, even if
    the complaint concerns an act of the public official or employee which is not service-connected, the case
    is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The law does not qualify.

    Both the Ombudsman and CA interpreted Section 4(A) of R.A. No. 6713 as broad enough to
    apply even to private transactions that have no connection to the duties of one’s office. However, that
    petitioner may not be penalized for violation of Section 4 (A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713. In Domingo v. Office
    of the Ombudsman, this Court had ruled that failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section 4(A)
    (b) of R.A. No. 6713, in relation to its implementing rules, is not a ground for disciplinary action.
    Nevertheless, for reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, petitioner is guilty of conduct
    unbecoming a public officer. In Assistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v.
    Justices Gregory S. Ong, et al., unbecoming conduct means improper performance and applies to a
    broader range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical
    procedure or prescribed method.

    Respondent is found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a public officer, and is FINED P15,000.00
    to be paid at the Office of the Ombudsman.

    You might also like