Office of the Ombudsman v.

Rodriguez | ema
July 23, 2010
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs.
ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
SUMMARY: Two complaints for abuse of authority, dishonesty, misconduct, and neglect were filed against P/B
Rodriguez, one in the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, and another in the Ombudsman.
The complaint before the Ombudsman was filed on Aug. 26, 2003; complaint in the SB was filed Sept. 1. SB served
notice on Rodriguez on Sept. 8, while Ombudsman did so on Sept. 10. After several motions filed, [allegation of forum
shopping, motion to dismiss filed by Rodriguez] the complainants eventually withdrew the SB complaint so they could
focus on the complaint with the Ombudsman. In the Ombudsman proceeding, Rodriguez filed MTD, claiming that the
SB still had jurisdiction because he never received a decision or resolution dismissing that complaint. Complainants
argued that the case was dismissed after the Vice-Mayor granted their motion to withdraw. Rodriguez replied that the
dismissal was invalid because only the vice-mayor signed it. Later, Ombudsman rendered a decision dismissing
Rodriguez from his position, disqualifying him from public office, and forfeiting his benefits and CSC eligibility. On
appeal, CA reversed, holding that SB still had jurisdiction because it was the first to serve notice on Rodriguez. On
appeal by the Ombudsman, SC reversed CA and affirmed the Ombudsman decision, ruling that the Ombudsman had
concurrent jurisdiction with the SB under RA 8749 and the LGC, because Rodriguez is a punong barangay (SG 14).
Contrary to CA conclusion and Rodriguez contention that jurisdiction is acquired by service of summons [thus SB
acquired jurisdiction first], in cases of 2 agencies exercising concurrent jurisdiction, the body in w/c the complaint is
filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals
exercising concurrent jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction continues until the case is terminated. CAB: Complaint with the
Ombudsman was filed first, so when it took of cognizance of [opted to assume jurisdiction over] the case, jurisdiction
had already vested, to the exclusion of the SB. Ombudsman decision was thus rendered with jurisdiction and should
be upheld.
DOCTRINE: Under LGC 60, the sangguniang bayan has no power to remove an elective barangay official. Apart
from the Ombudsman, only a proper court may do so. Unlike the sangguniang bayan, the powers of the Ombudsman
are not merely recommendatory. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to directly remove an erring public official
other than members of Congress and the Judiciary who may be removed only by impeachment. Ombudsman has
concurrent jurisdiction with the sangguniang bayan over administrative cases against elective barangay officials with
salary grade below 27, e.g., punong barangay. The rule against forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or
proceedings, not to administrative cases.
NATURE: Petition for review under ROC 45. Administrative complaint filed with the Ombudsman.
FACTS

Aug. 26, 2003 Ombudsman for Visayas (OMB) received a complaint against P/B Rolson RODRIGUEZ of
Sto. Rosario, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental. The complaint alleged abuse of authority, dishonesty,
oppression, misconduct in office, and neglect of duty.

Sep. 1, 2003 Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Binalbagan, through Vice-Mayor Jose G. YULO, received a
similar complaint against Rodriguez. [no statement as to who the complainants were]

Sep. 8, 2003 Yulo issued a notice ordering Rodriguez to file an answer within 15 days from receipt of such
notice.

Sep, 10, 2003 OMB required Rodriguez to file his answer.

Sep. 23, 2003 Rodriguez moved to dismiss the complaint in the SB for being baseless in fact and in law.
He also argued that the complainants violated the rule against forum shopping.

Oct. 24, 2003 Rodriguez moved to dismiss the OMB complaint on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum
shopping, arguing that the SB had acquired jurisdiction on Sep. 8.

Complainants, through counsel, moved to withdraw the SB complaint to prioritize the OMB complaint.
o Rodriguez insisted that the SB complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping
o Complainants admitted to forum shopping (LOL) and claimed that they were not assisted by
counsel when they filed the complaint.

Nov. 4, 2003 Yulo dismissed the SB complaint.

Jan. 29, 2004 OMB ordered both parties to file position papers. Rodriguez filed MR, citing pendency of his
MTD.
o MR denied. MTD is a prohibited pleading under AO 17, Rule III, Sec.5(g). OMB: Magfile ka ng
position paper.
o Rodriguez: Sige fa-file ako. SB still had jurisdiction over his person because he has not received
any resolution or decision indicating the dismissal of the SB case.

Complainants: There was no more complaint in the SB because Vice-Mayor Yulo granted their
motion to withdraw.
o Rodriguez rejoinder: Dismissal not valid because only the Vice-Mayor signed it.
Sep. 21, 2004 OMBUDSMAN DECISION
o Found Rodriguez GUILTY of dishonesty and oppression
o Rodriguez dismissed from service, w/ forfeiture of all benefits and civil service eligibilites, and
disqualification from public office.
o Rodriguez filed MR.
Jan 12, 2005 OMB directed the Mayor of Binalbagan to dismiss Rodriguez.
Rodriguez filed a petition for review with the CA.
May 8, 2006 CA DECISION
o OMB decision set aside for lack of jurisdiction
o Directed SB to continue hearing the case, as it acquired primary jurisdiction over Rodriguez, to the
exclusion of the OMB.
o BASIS: RoC 46, Sec. 4. SB was the first to serve notice on Rodriguez.
o OMB filed the present petition
OMB: Jurisdiction over the person is acquired once a body vested with jurisdiction takes cognizance of the
complaint. OMB was first to take cognizance of the complaint because the SB complaint was filed later.
Summons or notices do not vest jurisdiction over the person in an administrative case. Consistent with the
rule on concurrent jurisdiction, OMB exercise of jurisdiction must be to the exclusion of the SB.
Rodriguez: When a competent body has acquired jurisdiction over a complaint and over the person of the
respondent, other bodies are excluded from exercising jurisdiction over the same complaint. LGC IRR, Art.
124 provides that an elective official may be removed by the proper court or by disciplining authority
whichever acquires jurisdiction first to the exclusion of the other. SB acquired jurisdiction first. Jurisdiction in
administrative cases is acquired by service of summons or other compulsory processes. Complainants
committed forum shopping when they filed two identical complaints in two disciplining authorities exercising
concurrent jurisdiction.
o

ISSUES (HELD)
1) W/N the complainants violated the rule against forum shopping when they filed in the Ombudsman and the
sangguniang bayan identical complaints against Rodriguez (NO)
2) Who acquired jurisdiction first - the sangguniang bayan or the Ombudsman? (Ombudsman)
RATIO
1) FORUM SHOPPING NOT APPLICABLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
The facts in this case are analogous to those in Laxina, Sr. v. Ombudsman, which likewise involved identical
administrative complaints filed in both the Ombudsman and the sangguniang panlungsod against a punong barangay
for grave misconduct. The Court held therein that the rule against forum shopping applied only to judicial
cases or proceedings, not to administrative cases. Thus, even if complainants filed in the Ombudsman and the
sangguniang bayan identical complaints against [Rodriguez], they did not violate the rule against forum shopping
because their complaint was in the nature of an administrative case.
2) OMBUDSMAN HAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH SB BUT COMPLAINT WAS FIRST FILED WITH
OMBUDSMAN

Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 13(1): The Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1)
Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office, or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

Ombudsman Act, Sec. 15: The Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1)
Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of
this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the
investigations of such cases.

LGC 61(c): Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints. - A verified complaint against any erring elective
official shall be prepared as follows: (c) A complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed
before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be final
and executory.

Primary jurisdiction of Ombudsman applies only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

In cases cognizable by the regular courts, Ombudsmans jurisdiction is concurrent with other investigative
agencies.

RA 8749 limits cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan to public officials with positions salary grade 27 and
higher. Punong barangay is salary grade 14, so no jurisdiction.
From the applicable laws, it is clear that the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the sangguniang
bayan over administrative cases against elective barangay officials with salary grade below 27, such as
Rodriguez.
In administrative cases involving concurrent jurisdiction of 2 or more disciplining authorities, the body in w/c
the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the
exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
CAB: Since the complaint was filed first in the Ombudsman, and it opted to assume jurisdiction over the
complaint, the Ombudsmans exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the sangguniang bayan.
Jurisdiction is a matter of law. Once acquired, it is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until
the case is terminated. CAB: When complainants filed their case before the Ombudsman, jurisdiction was
already vested. Jurisdiction could no longer be transferred to the sangguniang bayan by virtue of a
subsequent complaint filed by the same complainants.
Under LGC 60, the sangguniang bayan has no power to remove an elective barangay official. Apart from the
Ombudsman, only a proper court may do so. Unlike the sangguniang bayan, the powers of the Ombudsman
are not merely recommendatory. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to directly remove an erring
public official other than members of Congress and the Judiciary who may be removed only by
impeachment.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted. Ombudsman decision upheld.