GR 172700; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172700 ; July 23, 2010
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants filed identical administrative complaints for abuse of authority, dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, and neglect of duty against Rolson Rodriguez, a Punong Barangay, before the Ombudsman (Visayas) on August 26, 2003, and before the Sangguniang Bayan of Binalbagan on September 1, 2003. The Sangguniang Bayan, through the Vice-Mayor, issued a notice to Rodriguez to answer on September 8, 2003, while the Ombudsman issued its order on September 10, 2003. Rodriguez moved to dismiss both complaints, arguing forum shopping and that the Sangguniang Bayan first acquired jurisdiction. Complainants later withdrew their complaint before the Sangguniang Bayan, which the Vice-Mayor dismissed on November 4, 2003. The Ombudsman proceeded, found Rodriguez guilty, and imposed the penalty of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Sangguniang Bayan acquired primary jurisdiction over the administrative case to the exclusion of the Ombudsman.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Ombudsman’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of concurrent jurisdiction and the hierarchy of disciplining authorities. The Ombudsman and the Sangguniang Bayan have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases against elective barangay officials. Jurisdiction is conferred by law upon the filing of a sufficient complaint, not by the mere issuance of a notice to answer. Since the complaint was filed with the Ombudsman on August 26, 2003, which was earlier than its filing with the Sangguniang Bayan on September 1, 2003, the Ombudsman first acquired jurisdiction. The subsequent withdrawal of the Sangguniang Bayan complaint rendered the issue of concurrent exercise moot.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is primary and not merely recommendatory. Under Section 60 of the Local Government Code, a Sangguniang Bayan cannot remove an elective barangay official; only a proper court or the Ombudsman can impose the penalty of dismissal. The Ombudsman is constitutionally and statutorily empowered to directly remove erring public officials. Therefore, the Ombudsman validly exercised its jurisdiction and imposed the penalty. The Court of Appeals erred in applying rules on jurisdiction over the person from the Rules of Court, which are not controlling in determining which body first acquired jurisdiction in administrative cases where jurisdiction is concurrent.