Alejandro vs.

Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence

Bureau
G.R. No. 173121, April 3,2013
Facts
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Franklin Alejandro, Barangay
Chairman of Barangay 293, Zone 28, Binondo, Manila, assailing the CA decision on
his appeal in relation to the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman in finding him
administratively liable for grave misconduct.
In May 2000, a joint anti-water pilferage operation was conducted by Manila
Water Services, Inc. (MWSI) and PNP-CIDG against Mico Car Wash (MICO) in Binondo,
Manila which was owned by Alfred Alejandro, the petitioners son. It was alleged
that MICO is illegally using MWSI fire hydrant to operate its car-wash business.
During the arrest of the car wash boys and confiscation of the containers, the
petitioner interfered and ordered several men to unload the confiscated containers.
A commotion ensues creating an opportunity for the apprehended personalities to
flee the area. In August 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and
Intelligence Bureau filed an administrative complaint against the petitioner for his
blatant refusal to recognize a joint legitimate police activity, and for his
unwarranted intervention, in which he was found guilty of grave misconduct and
was ordered to be dismissed from the service. Accordingly, the petitioner
overextends his authority as Barangay Chairman, induced other people to
disrespect proper authorities and tolerated the illegal acts of MICOs employees.
Petitioner filed an MR with the Office of the Deputy OMB (ODOMB) but was denied.
In his appeal before the CA, the court dismissed the petition for premature filing for
failing to exhaust proper administrative remedies from the OMB. Petitioner moved
for reconsideration of the CA ruling, but was also denied. He now posits that the
OMB has no jurisdiction to order his dismissal from the service under RA 7160 (Local
Government Code of 1991), which sets that an elective local official may be
removed from office only by the order of a proper court.
Issue
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman may exercise jurisdiction over elective
officials and has the power to order their dismissal from the service.
Ruling
The SC upheld the jurisdiction of the OMB. It said that the OMB has
primary jurisdiction to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or
employee who is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as also provided for by
RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). It noted Section 15 of said act which says
that the OMB shall have powers, functions and duties to 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 investigation of such cases.

The court further held that Sandiganbayans jurisdiction extends to public

officials occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher and those
with salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the OMB and
of the regular courts or other investigative agencies. In administrative cases
involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body
where 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. In this case, the petitioner is a Barangay Chairman, occupying a
position corresponding to salary grade 14. Under RA 7160, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan has disciplinary authority
over any elective barangay official. Nonetheless, since the complaint
against the petitioner was initially filed with the Office of the OMB, the
OMBs exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the Sangguniang
Bayan whose exercise of jurisdiction is concurrent. Thus, the high court
denied the petition of Alejandro for lack of merit.