Office of The Ombudsman, petitioner vs. Pedro Delijero, Jr. Respondent.
GR. No. 172635
October 20, 2010
Peralta, J.
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to set aside the decision and resolution of the court of appeals.
Respondent was a public school teacher at the Burauen Comprehensive National high School, Burauen, Leyte he was charged for
grave misconduct. The complainant is Cleofas P. Dela Cruz, the mother of the alleged vicim Myra Dela Cruz. 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.
That sometime in May 2003, complainant learned from her cousin that respondent was courting her daughter. Upon confronting her
daughter, complainant learned that her daughter received from respondent several handwritten love letters, a valentines card and
200 pesos allowance.
In her affidavit, Myra declared that aside from respondent courting her, sending love notes, valentines cards thru her classmate, on
April 7, 2003 at about 10:00 am, respondent kissed Myra in his room.
In his defense, respondent denied kissing Myra in the morning of April 7, 2003. Moreover, respondent claimed that Myra fell in love
with him and wrote him love letters further claimed that he was merely forced to answer her letters as she threatened him that she
would kill herself if he would not answer her and reciprocate her love. Lastly, respondent claimed that their relationship was merely
platonic.
Petitioner called for a preliminary conference after which ordered them to submit their respective position papers. However,
respondent did not submit instead submitted a manifestation, stating that the administrative aspect of the complaint should be filed
before the Office of the regional director of education. But on May 17, 2004, petitioner rendered a decision finding respondent guilty
of Grave Misconduct.
Respondent then moved for a reconsideration of petitioner’s decision but the same was denied. Aggrieved respondent appealed to
the Court of Appeals which ruled in favor of the respondent.
Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion to intervene and for reconsideration assailing the decision of the CA.
Hence the petition.
Issue: WON the ombudsman has the authority to determine the administrative liability of an erring public official or employee, and
to direct and compel the head of the concerned office or agency to implement the penalty imposed.
Ruling: Yes. The ombudsman has the authority to determine the administrative liability of an erring public official. In the case of
Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing, the court ruled that the power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative
liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory. Further, Section 15(3) of RA 6770 states that the Ombudsman has
the power to recommend removal, suspension, demotion of government officials and employees and enforce its disciplinary
authority as provided in Section 21 of the same.
In this case, though it is true that the administrative complaint against respondent should have been referred by petitioner to the
proper committee of the DepEd for the institution of appropriate administrative proceedings. The administrative proceedings it
being an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek consideration of the action of ruling complained of, respondent
after submitting the manifestation had in fact submitted himself to the body’s jurisdiction as he had already submitted his counter-
affidavit, an affidavit of his witness and exhibits. 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. Respondent’s petition for review before the CA even bolster the facts.
Thus, the Ombudsman has authority over respondent.
Notes:
SEC. 19. Administrative Complaints. – The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which:
(1) Are contrary to law or regulation; (2) Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
(3) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions, though in accordance with law;
(4) Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;
(5) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or
(6) Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.
Norberto B. Villamin, IPI No. 17-256-CA-J,
February 18, 2020
Delos Santos, J.
Facts:
Aldrin Madreo, petitioner vs. Lucilo R. Bayron
GR. No. 237330
-----------------------------
Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner vs. Lucilo R. Bayron
GR No. 237579
November 3, 2020
Delos Santos, J.
Facts:
SOFRONIO B. ALBANIA, Petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Promulgated: and EDGARDO A. TALLADO, Respondent
G.R. No. 226792
June 6, 2017
Peralta, J.
Facts: This is
