Ombudsman v. Delijero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr., a 52-year-old Mathematics teacher at Burauen Comprehensive National High School, was administratively charged with Grave Misconduct. The complaint was filed by Cleofas P. dela Cruz, mother of the alleged victim, Myra dela Cruz, a 12-year-old student. Myra alleged that respondent courted her, sent her love letters and Valentine's cards, and gave her money. She further alleged that on April 7, 2003, respondent kissed her cheek inside his room. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the Ombudsman's decision, ruling motu proprio that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction and that the case should have been heard by the DepEd under Republic Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers). The CA also opined that the Ombudsman's power to impose sanctions was merely recommendatory. The Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that it has full and complete administrative disciplinary authority over public school teachers, which is concurrent with other disciplining authorities, and that Section 9 of RA 4670 does not exempt public school teachers from the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. It also argued that the Ombudsman's power to impose sanctions is not merely recommendatory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has full and complete administrative disciplinary authority over public school teachers, concurrent with other disciplining authorities. Whether Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4670 exempts public school teachers from the Ombudsman's administrative disciplinary authority. Whether the Ombudsman's power to impose administrative sanctions is merely recommendatory or mandatory. Whether respondent is estopped from assailing the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution are reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for it to decide the case on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Ombudsman's administrative disciplinary authority over public school teachers: The Supreme Court held that the administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over a public school teacher is not exclusive but concurrent with the proper committee of the Department of Education (DepEd). This is based on the constitutional mandate of the Ombudsman under Article XI, Sections 12 and 13, and the provisions of R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). However, Section 23 of R.A. No. 6770 provides that the Ombudsman may refer certain complaints to the proper disciplinary authority. In this case, given that respondent is a public school teacher covered by R.A. No. 4670, it would have been more prudent for the Ombudsman to refer the complaint to the DepEd, as it would have been in a better position to serve the interest of justice. On Section 9 of RA 4670 and the Ombudsman's jurisdiction: The Court clarified that while Section 9 of RA 4670 provides for an investigating committee within the DepEd for administrative charges against teachers, this does not divest the Ombudsman of its concurrent jurisdiction. The Ombudsman Act recognizes the existence of other disciplinary authorities, and Section 23 allows for referral. The Court found that the CA erred in ruling that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction solely based on RA 4670. On the Ombudsman's power to impose sanctions: The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing and Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja that the Ombudsman's order to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee is not merely advisory or recommendatory but is actually mandatory. The implementation of the order imposing the penalty is to be coursed through the proper officer. The CA's conclusion that the Ombudsman's power was only recommendatory was incorrect. On estoppel and respondent's participation: The Court found that respondent is estopped from assailing the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Unlike in previous cases where the respondent actively participated and only belatedly questioned jurisdiction, in this case, respondent's manifestation, while noting the pendency of a DECS case, stated that he "submits the same for the resolution of this Office." This submission, coupled with his prior filing of a counter-affidavit and other pleadings, indicated a waiver of his right to question the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The CA's reliance on the manifestation to dismiss the case was therefore misplaced.
Main Doctrine
While the Ombudsman has concurrent administrative disciplinary authority over public school teachers with the Department of Education (DepEd), Section 23 of the Ombudsman Act mandates that the Ombudsman may refer such complaints to the proper disciplinary authority. However, active participation in the proceedings before the Ombudsman, without a timely challenge to its jurisdiction, bars a respondent from assailing such jurisdiction under the principle of estoppel.