Ombudsman v.

Lucero, November 24, 2006

FACTS: Petitioner Farida T. Lucero was appointed as Clerk II of the LTO, was reassigned, by
virtue of a e!orandu!, to assist the Regional Casier in collecting and receiving
miscellaneous !ees"revenues.
At the re"uest of the OIC#$egional %ire&tor 'orferio I( endo)a of the LTO, COA
&ondu&ted an audit in the Cash Se&tion of the Operations %ivision of LTO, revealed Petitioner
to ave issued si#t$%nine &6'( altered miscellaneous recei)ts.
O!buds!an *+isayas, found the 'etitioner guilty of dishonesty( On a))eal, the appellate
&ourt upheld the finding of the O!buds!an but declared tat te Ombudsman ad no
autorit$ to order )etitioner*s dismissal !rom te service.
ISS-.: /hether the O!buds!an is e!powered to order the re!oval of publi& offi&ials or
e!ployees in ad!inistrative &ases(
0.L%: +,-. Te ombudsman act autori.es te ombudsman to im)ose )enalties in
administrative cases. *1ernas, page 234,
The Offi&e of the O!buds!an is e!powered not !erely to re&o!!end, but to i!pose
the penalty of re!oval, suspension, de!otion, fine, &ensure, or prose&ution of a publi& offi&er or
e!ployee found to be at fault(