Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Estijara v. Ranada

    Uploaded by

    Ali Namla
    Edward Ranada filed an administrative complaint against Edgardo Estarija, a harbor master, alleging Estarija demanded money for berthing permits. The NBI caught Estarija accepting marked money from Ranada's co-worker. The Ombudsman found Estarija guilty of graft and dismissed him from service. Estarija appealed, arguing the Ombudsman lacked power to remove officials. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding substantial evidence of misconduct. It also ruled the Ombudsman's power to directly remove officials for misconduct is constitutional under the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

    Copyright:

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

    Estijara v. Ranada

    Uploaded by

    Ali Namla
    30 views2 pages
    Edward Ranada filed an administrative complaint against Edgardo Estarija, a harbor master, alleging Estarija demanded money for berthing permits. The NBI caught Estarija accepting marked money from Ranada's co-worker. The Ombudsman found Estarija guilty of graft and dismissed him from service. Estarija appealed, arguing the Ombudsman lacked power to remove officials. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding substantial evidence of misconduct. It also ruled the Ombudsman's power to directly remove officials for misconduct is constitutional under the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

    Original Title

    estijara v. ranada.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Edward Ranada filed an administrative complaint against Edgardo Estarija, a harbor master, alleging Estarija demanded money for berthing permits. The NBI caught Estarija accepting marked money from Ranada's co-worker. The Ombudsman found Estarija guilty of graft and dismissed him from service. Estarija appealed, arguing the Ombudsman lacked power to remove officials. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding substantial evidence of misconduct. It also ruled the Ombudsman's power to directly remove officials for misconduct is constitutional under the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

    Copyright:

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

    Estijara v. Ranada

    Uploaded by

    Ali Namla
    Edward Ranada filed an administrative complaint against Edgardo Estarija, a harbor master, alleging Estarija demanded money for berthing permits. The NBI caught Estarija accepting marked money from Ranada's co-worker. The Ombudsman found Estarija guilty of graft and dismissed him from service. Estarija appealed, arguing the Ombudsman lacked power to remove officials. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding substantial evidence of misconduct. It also ruled the Ombudsman's power to directly remove officials for misconduct is constitutional under the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

    Copyright:

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

    EDGARDO V.

    ESTARIJA
    , petitioner, vs.
    EDWARD F. RANADA and the Honorable OMBUDSMAN Aniano A. Desierto(now succeeded by
    Hon. Simeon Marcelo), and his Deputy OMBUDSMAN forMindanao, Hon. Antonio E. Valenzuela
    , respondents.June 26, 2006 | Quisumbing

    FACTS:

    Edward F. Ranada filed an administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct before the Office of


    the Ombudsman-Mindanao, against Captain Edgardo V. Estarija,Harbor Master of the
    Philippine Ports Authority, Port of Davao, Sasa, Davao City.

    The complaint alleged that Estarija issues the necessary berthing permit for allships that dock in


    the Davao Port, and had been demanding money for theapproval and issuance of berthing
    permits, and P5000 as monthly contribution.

    The NBI caught Estarija in possession of the P5,000 marked money. Consequently, the
    Ombudsman ordered his preventive suspension and filed acriminal case for violation of RA
    3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

    Estarija claimed that Adrian Cagata, Ranada’s co-employee, called to inform him that they had


    payables to the PPA, and he was hesitant to get the P5,000 from Cagata because the
    association had no pending transaction with the PPA. Estarija claimed that Cagata made him
    believe that the money was a partial remittance to the PPA of the pilotage fee.

    Nonetheless, he received the money but assured Cagata that he would send an official receipt


    the following day. He claimed that the entrapment and the subsequent filing of the complaint
    were part of a conspiracy to exact personal vengeance against him on account of Ranada’s
    business losses occasioned by the cancellation of its sub-agency agreement, which was
    eventually awarded to a shipping agency managed by Estarija’s son.
     
     Ombudsman: found Estarija guilty; DISMISSED from the service withforfeiture of all
    leave credits and retirement benefits; disqualified fromreemployment in the government

     Estarija filed a motion for reconsideration. (SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED)
     
    He claimed that dismissal was unconstitutional since the Ombudsman didnot have direct
    and immediate power to remove government officials,whether elective or appointive, who
    are not removable by impeachment.
     
    He maintains that under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman’s administrative authority is
    merely recommendatory and that RA 6770, otherwise known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989,” is
    unconstitutional because it gives the Office of the Ombudsman additional powers that
    are not provided for in the Constitution.

    CA: affirmed Ombudsman’s decision; MR denied

    ISSUES:

    (1) Is there substantial evidence to hold petitioner liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct?
    (2) Is the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove, suspend, demote, fine or censure erring
    officials unconstitutional?

    RULING: FIRST ISSUE: YES.

    The Court is unconvinced by Estarija’s explanation of his conduct. He does not deny that he
    went to the DPAI office to collect the money and that he actually received the money. Since
    there was no pending transaction between the PPA and the DPAI, he had no reason to go to
    the latter’s office to collect any money.

    Even if he was authorized to assist in the collection of money due the agency, he should have
    issued an official receipt for the transaction, but he did not do so.

    SECOND ISSUE: NO.

    Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the
    Ombudsman.

    In passing RA 6770, Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with the power
    to prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees to make him a more
    active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office.

    Republic Act No. 6770


    November 17, 1989
    “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
    OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

    You might also like