Posted by Rio Vie C. Dumalag on 25 July 2018
FACTS:
Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr., was a public school teacher at Burauen Comprehensive National High School, Barauen, Leyte and was administratively charged for Grave Misconduct. A complaint against respondent was filed before petitioner Office of the Ombudsman as a Request for Assistance (RAS) from the President of the Burauen Watchdog Committee for Good Government.
Complainant Cleofas P. dela Cruz, was the mother of the alleged victim Myra dela Cruz (Myra). At the time of the incident, Myra was only 12 years old and a first year high school student at the Burauen Comprehensive National High School. Respondent, on the other hand, was Myra's 52-year-old Mathematics teacher.
Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned from her cousin that respondent was courting her daughter Myra. Complainant then immediately confronted Myra, who admitted having received from respondent several handwritten love letters, a Valentine's card and Two Hundred Pesos as allowance.
On appeal, The CA, without ruling on the issues raised by respondent, instead tackled the issue of jurisdiction motu proprio. The CA ruled that petitioner had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint filed before it as Republic Act No. 4670 (RA 4670), the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, specifically covers and governs administrative proceedings involving public school teachers. The CA held that petitioner should have immediately dismissed the case after respondent had informed it, through a manifestation, of the pendency of an administrative complaint before the DECS. Moreover, the CA ruled that even assuming arguendo that petitioner had the power to investigate the complaint, it still had no power to directly impose sanctions against respondent as its power is limited to only recommend the appropriate sanctions, but not to directly impose the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers.
HELD:
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Galicia, court ruled that it is the School Superintendent and not the Ombudsman that has jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers, yet, Galicia is estopped from belatedly assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. His right to due process was satisfied when he participated fully in the investigation proceedings. He was able to present evidence and arguments in his defense. The investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was therefore valid.
In the present case, while petitioner has concurrent administrative disciplinary authority with the DECS over public school teachers, Section 23 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides that the Ombudsman may refer a complaint to the proper disciplinary authority. Under the circumstances obtaining herein, it would have been more prudent for petitioner to have referred the complaint to the DECS given that it would have been in a better position to serve the interest of justice considering the nature of the controversy. Respondent is a public school teacher and is covered by RA 4670, therefore, the proceedings before the DECS would have been the more appropriate venue to resolve the dispute.
However, the foregoing pronouncement does not automatically mean that this Court is nullifying the proceedings before the Ombudsman as estoppel has already set in. In Medrano, this Court ruled that the active participation of an individual before the administrative proceedings and the belated challenge to the jurisdiction of the said body bars him from assailing such acts under the principle of estoppel.
If respondent wanted to assail the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, he should have clearly prayed for the same through a motion to dismiss, a manifestation ad cautelam, or any other document of similar import. The phrase, "the respondent submits the same for the resolution of this Office," is indicative of respondent's submission to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
FACTS:
Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr., was a public school teacher at Burauen Comprehensive National High School, Barauen, Leyte and was administratively charged for Grave Misconduct. A complaint against respondent was filed before petitioner Office of the Ombudsman as a Request for Assistance (RAS) from the President of the Burauen Watchdog Committee for Good Government.
Complainant Cleofas P. dela Cruz, was the mother of the alleged victim Myra dela Cruz (Myra). At the time of the incident, Myra was only 12 years old and a first year high school student at the Burauen Comprehensive National High School. Respondent, on the other hand, was Myra's 52-year-old Mathematics teacher.
Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned from her cousin that respondent was courting her daughter Myra. Complainant then immediately confronted Myra, who admitted having received from respondent several handwritten love letters, a Valentine's card and Two Hundred Pesos as allowance.
On appeal, The CA, without ruling on the issues raised by respondent, instead tackled the issue of jurisdiction motu proprio. The CA ruled that petitioner had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint filed before it as Republic Act No. 4670 (RA 4670), the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, specifically covers and governs administrative proceedings involving public school teachers. The CA held that petitioner should have immediately dismissed the case after respondent had informed it, through a manifestation, of the pendency of an administrative complaint before the DECS. Moreover, the CA ruled that even assuming arguendo that petitioner had the power to investigate the complaint, it still had no power to directly impose sanctions against respondent as its power is limited to only recommend the appropriate sanctions, but not to directly impose the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers.
HELD:
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Galicia, court ruled that it is the School Superintendent and not the Ombudsman that has jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers, yet, Galicia is estopped from belatedly assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. His right to due process was satisfied when he participated fully in the investigation proceedings. He was able to present evidence and arguments in his defense. The investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was therefore valid.
In the present case, while petitioner has concurrent administrative disciplinary authority with the DECS over public school teachers, Section 23 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides that the Ombudsman may refer a complaint to the proper disciplinary authority. Under the circumstances obtaining herein, it would have been more prudent for petitioner to have referred the complaint to the DECS given that it would have been in a better position to serve the interest of justice considering the nature of the controversy. Respondent is a public school teacher and is covered by RA 4670, therefore, the proceedings before the DECS would have been the more appropriate venue to resolve the dispute.
However, the foregoing pronouncement does not automatically mean that this Court is nullifying the proceedings before the Ombudsman as estoppel has already set in. In Medrano, this Court ruled that the active participation of an individual before the administrative proceedings and the belated challenge to the jurisdiction of the said body bars him from assailing such acts under the principle of estoppel.
If respondent wanted to assail the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, he should have clearly prayed for the same through a motion to dismiss, a manifestation ad cautelam, or any other document of similar import. The phrase, "the respondent submits the same for the resolution of this Office," is indicative of respondent's submission to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
