Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    19.) Khan Jr. v. Office of The Ombudsman: Charters. This Being So, It Can Only Investigate and Prosecute Acts or

    Uploaded by

    Timmy Gonzales
    Private respondents accused petitioners, who were shareholders and officers of Synergy Services Corporation, of using their positions at Philippine Airlines (PAL) to secure a contract for their company. The Deputy Ombudsman denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the charges. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the petitioners because PAL, though previously government-owned, was established as a private entity and does not have an original charter. Therefore, the petitioners as officers of PAL cannot be investigated or prosecuted under the Anti-Graft law.

    Copyright:

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

    19.) Khan Jr. v. Office of The Ombudsman: Charters. This Being So, It Can Only Investigate and Prosecute Acts or

    Uploaded by

    Timmy Gonzales
    19 views2 pages
    Private respondents accused petitioners, who were shareholders and officers of Synergy Services Corporation, of using their positions at Philippine Airlines (PAL) to secure a contract for their company. The Deputy Ombudsman denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the charges. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the petitioners because PAL, though previously government-owned, was established as a private entity and does not have an original charter. Therefore, the petitioners as officers of PAL cannot be investigated or prosecuted under the Anti-Graft law.

    Original Description:

    hkjk

    Original Title

    19-klk

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Private respondents accused petitioners, who were shareholders and officers of Synergy Services Corporation, of using their positions at Philippine Airlines (PAL) to secure a contract for their company. The Deputy Ombudsman denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the charges. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the petitioners because PAL, though previously government-owned, was established as a private entity and does not have an original charter. Therefore, the petitioners as officers of PAL cannot be investigated or prosecuted under the Anti-Graft law.

    Copyright:

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

    19.) Khan Jr. v. Office of The Ombudsman: Charters. This Being So, It Can Only Investigate and Prosecute Acts or

    Uploaded by

    Timmy Gonzales
    Private respondents accused petitioners, who were shareholders and officers of Synergy Services Corporation, of using their positions at Philippine Airlines (PAL) to secure a contract for their company. The Deputy Ombudsman denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the charges. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the petitioners because PAL, though previously government-owned, was established as a private entity and does not have an original charter. Therefore, the petitioners as officers of PAL cannot be investigated or prosecuted under the Anti-Graft law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    19.) Khan Jr. v.

    Office of the ombudsman

    Privaterespondents Rosauro Torralba and Celestino Bandala charge


    d petitioners before the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) for violation
    of RA 3019.
    Private respondents accused petitioners of using their positions in
    PAL to secure a contract for Synergy Services Corporation, a
    corporation engaged in hauling and janitorial services in which they
    were shareholders.
    Pet avers: (1) the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over them since
    PAL was a private entity and (2) they were not public officers, hence,
    outside the application of RA 3019.
    Deputy Ombudsmans denied the motion to dismiss. Pet appealed
    but likewise dismissed, Ombudsman ruled that that petitioners
    were officers of a GOCC, hence, he had jurisdiction over them.
    Petitioners argue that: (1) the Ombudsmans jurisdiction only covers
    GOCCs with original charters and these do not include PAL, a
    private entity created under the general corporation law;(2) RA 3019
    only concerns public officers, thus, they cannot be investigated or
    prosecuted under that law.
    ISSUE: W/N Office of ombudsman has the authority to prosecute
    pets for violation of RA 3019.
    RULING: No. the Office of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction
    over public officials/ employees of GOCCs with original
    charters. This being so, it can only investigate and prosecute acts or
    omissions of the officials/employees of government corporations.
    Therefore, although the government later on acquired the
    controlling interest in PAL, the fact remains that the latter did not

    have an original charter and its officers/employees could not be


    investigated and/or prosecuted by the Ombudsman.
    public officers are those endowed with the exercise of sovereign
    executive, legislative or judicial functions.[17] The explication of the
    term is also consistent with the Courts pronouncement in Quimpo
    that, in the case of officers/employees in GOCCs, they are deemed
    public officers if their corporations are tasked to carry out
    governmental functions.

    In any event, PAL has since reverted to private ownership and we


    find it pointless to scrutinize the implications of a legal issue that
    technically no longer exists.
    20. Garcia-Rueda v Pascasio

    You might also like