KHAN, JR. VS.

OffiCE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

Private respondents Rosauro Torralba and Celestine Bandala charged petitioners before the Deputy
Ombudsman (Visayas) for violation of RA 3019. They accused petitioners of using their positions in PAL
to secure a contract for Synergy Service Corporation, a corporation engaged in hauling and janitorial
service in which they were shareholders.

Petitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the complaint but in the resolution it was dismiss by
the Deputy Ombudsman.

Petitoners appealed the order to the ombudsman and raised the same issues but was again dismiss by
the Ombudsman.

Petition for certiorari, with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order, petitioners assail the
orders (July 13,1989 & February 22,1996), claiming that public respondents acted without jurisdiction
and/or grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the investigation of the case against them
although they were officers of a private corporation and not “public officers”.

ISSUE:

WON public respondents Deputy Ombudsman have jurisdiction over petitioners Ismael G. Khan, Jr.and
Wenceslao L. Malabanan, former officers of the Philippines Airlines (PAL), for violation of RA3019 (the
Anti-Graft and Corruption Practice Act)

HELD:

No, according to the 1987 Constitution specifically Art.XI,Sec.13(2) stating the powers and function of
the Office of the Ombudsman “The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power, to direct, upon
complaint or at its own instance, any government-owned and controlled corporation with original
charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties”. The Office of the Ombudsman exercises
jurisdiction over public officials/employees of the government corporations, although the government
later on acquired the controlling interest in PAL, it did not have an “original charter” and its
officers/employees could not be investigated and/or prosecuted by the ombudsman.

The case Quimpo is not applicable to the case at bar because the government acquired PETROPHIL to
“perform functions related to government programs and policies on oil.” Its purpose was for
governmental functions certainly not the case with PAL where there was no governmental functions
at all were involved.

The term “government-owned or controlled corporations” in the 1973 Constitution was qualified by
the 1987 Constitution to refer only to those with original charters. PAL being originally a private
corporation seeded by private capital and created under the general corporation law, does not fall
within the jurisdiction powers of the Ombudsman.

Petitioners as officers of PAL were not public officers. A public officer is an individual invested with
portion of the sovereign function of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the
public. They are those endowed with the exercise of sovereign executive, legislative, or judicial
functions.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Public respondents Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) and
Office of the Ombudsman are restrained from proceeding with the investigation or prosecution of the
complaint against the petitioners for violation of RA3019. Accordingly, their assailed orders of July
13,1989 and February 22,1996 respectively, are SET ASIDE and ANNULLED.