GR 172635; (October, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172635; October 20, 2010
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. PEDRO DELIJERO, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr., a public school teacher, was administratively charged with Grave Misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman. The complaint, initiated by the mother of a 12-year-old student, alleged that Delijero courted the minor by sending love letters and a Valentine’s card, gave her money, and kissed her on the cheek inside a classroom on April 7, 2003. The student and three classmates executed affidavits supporting these allegations. Delijero denied the kissing incident and claimed the student had romantic feelings for him, which he merely reciprocated platonically to prevent her from harming herself.
The Ombudsman found Delijero guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the Ombudsman’s decision. Without addressing the merits, the CA ruled motu proprio that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction. It held that Republic Act No. 4670 (The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) vested exclusive disciplinary authority over public school teachers in the Department of Education, and that the Ombudsman’s power was merely recommendatory.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate and directly impose administrative penalties on a public school teacher.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the Ombudsman’s administrative disciplinary authority under Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) is concurrent with other agencies, including those governing public school teachers. Section 23 of RA 6770 explicitly grants the Ombudsman the power to “direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution.” Critically, the same provision states the Ombudsman may, in the alternative, “enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21.” Section 21, in turn, authorizes the Ombudsman to “impose” penalties like removal or suspension. This establishes a direct disciplinary power, not merely a recommendatory one.
The Court emphasized that RA 4670 does not create an exemption for public school teachers from the Ombudsman’s plenary authority. Jurisdiction is concurrent. The CA erred in dismissing the case solely on jurisdictional grounds without examining the factual merits of the administrative charge. Consequently, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the CA to decide the appeal on its substantive merits, including the appreciation of evidence and the propriety of the penalty imposed.