View full case

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. VICTORIO N. MEDRANO

FACTS:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed against respondent Victorio N. Medrano for alleged sexual harassment. The petitioner, Office of the Ombudsman, initially found respondent guilty and imposed the penalty of suspension. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision by reducing the penalty to a reprimand.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Respondent, instead of filing a comment on the petition, filed a Manifestation with Motion In Lieu of Comment, arguing that the petition should be dismissed as moot and academic. This is due to the execution of an Affidavit of Desistance by the complainant, Ma. Ruby, and the subsequent dismissal of the criminal case against respondent by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

In her Affidavit of Desistance, Ma. Ruby stated that she now realizes that the incident was a product of a misunderstanding and that she is retracting everything she said in her letter-complaint against respondent.

Petitioner opposes the dismissal of the petition and the administrative complaint, arguing that Ma. Ruby's Affidavit of Desistance and the dismissal of the criminal case are not sufficient legal bases for dismissal.

The court noted that the respondent's arguments did not absolve him of liability in the administrative case. The court further stated that it was necessary to determine whether the petitioner, in this case, had jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against the respondent. The court emphasized the need to examine the power and authority of the Ombudsman, as well as the provisions of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, in order to resolve this jurisdictional issue.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavit of desistance is credible and can absolve him from liability in the administrative case.

  2. Whether the petitioner has jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against the respondent.

  3. Whether the administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over a public school teacher is exclusive or concurrent with the proper committee of the Department of Education (DepEd).

  4. Whether the Voucher Management Officer (VMO) of the Senior High School Voucher Program is considered a public school teacher within the coverage of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.

  5. Can the respondent be barred from assailing the petitioner's acts under the principle of estoppel?

  6. Should the appellate court have resolved the appeal on its merits instead of citing lack of jurisdiction?

RULING:

  1. The respondent's affidavit of desistance is not credible and cannot absolve him from liability in the administrative case. The court noted several reasons for its lack of credibility, including the fact that the affidavit was written in English, which is not the affiant's native language, and contained legal terms and conclusions that a layperson would not normally use. Additionally, the affidavit lacked specific factual details, raising questions about the respondent's actual motivations and the nature of the alleged misunderstanding between him and the complainant.

  2. The petitioner, the Office of the Ombudsman, has jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against the respondent. The court emphasized that the Ombudsman and his Deputies have overreaching authority, powers, functions, and duties to act on complaints against public officials and employees. This authority is derived from Section 12 and 13 of Article XI of the Constitution, which created the independent Office of the Ombudsman. Furthermore, Congress enacted R.A. No. 6770, known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, which provides for the functional, structural organization, and the extent of the administrative disciplinary authority of the petitioner. This law applies to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any officer or employee of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

  3. The administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over a public school teacher is concurrent with the proper committee of the Department of Education (DepEd). The Ombudsman Act of 1989 recognizes the existence of "proper disciplinary authorities" and allows the Ombudsman to refer certain complaints to these authorities for the institution of appropriate administrative proceedings against erring public officers or employees. The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers specifically provides that administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard initially by a committee composed of the School Superintendent of the Division, a representative of the local or any existing provincial or national teachers' organization, and a supervisor of the Division. Therefore, the Ombudsman's authority is not exclusive in this case.

  4. The Voucher Management Officer (VMO) of the Senior High School Voucher Program is considered a public school teacher within the coverage of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers defines the term "teacher" to include all persons engaged in the classroom, in any level of instruction, on a full-time basis, including those performing supervisory and/or administrative functions. Since the respondent, who is designated as the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of a public school and concurrently the school principal of another public school, falls within this definition, the administrative complaint against him should have been referred to the proper DepEd committee, as per Section 23 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989.

  5. Yes, the respondent can be barred from assailing the petitioner's acts under the principle of estoppel. The respondent actively participated in the administrative proceedings and even sought affirmative relief from the petitioner. By participating in the proceedings without raising any objection to the petitioner's jurisdiction, he waived his right to challenge it later on.

  6. No, the appellate court should have resolved the appeal on its merits instead of citing lack of jurisdiction. The case involves concurrent jurisdiction, and the respondent's active participation in the proceedings does not bar him from challenging the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Affidavits of desistance must be evaluated for credibility and reliability, considering factors such as language, content, and specificity of facts.

  • The Office of the Ombudsman is an independent institution created by the Constitution with far-reaching powers, duties, and functions in addressing complaints against public officials and employees.

  • The Ombudsman's jurisdiction is not limited to criminal cases but also extends to administrative complaints, as mandated by R.A. No. 6770.

  • 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).

  • The Voucher Management Officer (VMO) of the Senior High School Voucher Program is considered a public school teacher under the coverage of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.

  • The principle of estoppel by laches bars a party from challenging jurisdiction after actively participating in administrative proceedings without raising any objection to jurisdiction.

  • Participation in administrative proceedings without challenging jurisdiction waives the right to later contest the jurisdiction of the administrative body.

  • The principle of estoppel by laches does not apply when a case involves lack of jurisdiction, as opposed to concurrent jurisdiction.