Download Carandang vs Desierto PDF

TitleCarandang vs Desierto
TagsPublic Law Common Law Virtue Public Sphere Corporations
File Size47.2 KB
Total Pages2
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Carandang vs. Disierto G.R. no. 148076, January 12, 2011
Facts:

The RPN-9 was sequestered by the Government.

On July 28, 1998, Carandang assumed office as general manager and chief operating officer of
RPN.8

On April 19, 1999, Carandang and other RPN officials were charged with grave misconduct before
the Ombudsman. The charge alleged that Carandang, in his capacity as the general manager of
RPN, had entered into a contract with AF Broadcasting Incorporated despite his being an
incorporator, director, and stockholder of that corporation; that he had thus held financial and
material interest in a contract that had required the approval of his office; and that the transaction
was prohibited under Section 7 (a) and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), thereby rendering him administratively liable
for grave misconduct.

Carandang sought the dismissal of the administrative charge on the ground that the Ombudsman
had no jurisdiction over him because RPN was not a government-owned or -controlled corporation.9

In its decision dated January 26, 2000,11 the Ombudsman found Carandang guilty of grave
misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the service.

Carandang moved for reconsideration on two grounds: (a) that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction
over him because RPN was not a government-owned or -controlled corporation; and (b) that he had
no financial and material interest in the contract that required the approval of his office.12

Issue:

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the herein petitioner.

Held:

A public office "is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested
with some portion of the sovereign functions of the state to be exercised by him for the benefit of the
public." Also it includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even nominal,
from the government as defined in Sec. 2 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended. Unless the
powers conferred are of this nature, the individual is not a public officer.

The Court was constrained to conclude that, indeed, the herein petitioner (Antonio M. Carandang) is
a public officer.

Precisely, since he (Antonio M. Carandang) was appointed by then President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada as general manager and chief operating officer of RPN-9 (page 127 of the Rollo). As a
presidential appointee, the petitioner derives his authority from the Philippine Government. It is luce
clarius that the function of the herein petitioner (as a presidential appointee), relates to public duty,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_148076_2011.html#fnt8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_148076_2011.html#fnt12
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_148076_2011.html#fnt11
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_148076_2011.html#fnt9

Similer Documents