G.R. No. 177580 October 17, 2008
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. VICTORIO N. MEDRANO, respondent.

FACTS

Ma. Ruby A. Dumalaog, a teacher at Jacobo Z. Gonzales Memorial National High School in Biñan, Laguna, filed a sworn letter-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (petitioner) charging her superior, Victorio N. Medrano (respondent), the Officer-In-Charge of the school, with violation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (criminal case) and grave misconduct (administrative case). The complaint alleged that on March 28, 2003, respondent made sexual advances and abused her sexually. Respondent denied the charge, claiming it was maliciously designed to force him to give Ma. Ruby a regular teaching post. The Ombudsman initially ordered respondent’s preventive suspension. By Decision dated July 19, 2004, the Ombudsman found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and imposed dismissal. In a Joint Order dated April 8, 2005, it modified the decision, finding him guilty of sexual harassment and meting a penalty of one-year suspension without pay. Respondent filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals, challenging the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over the administrative case, arguing that under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers ( R.A. No. 4670 ), exclusive jurisdiction lies with an investigating committee of the Department of Education. The Court of Appeals annulled the Ombudsman’s decision and dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. Respondent subsequently filed a Manifestation praying for the dismissal of the petition as moot and academic due to Ma. Ruby’s execution of an Affidavit of Desistance and the dismissal of the related criminal case.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition has become moot and academic due to the Affidavit of Desistance and the dismissal of the criminal case.
2. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against respondent.
3. Whether respondent is estopped from questioning the Ombudsman’s assumption of jurisdiction.

RULING

1. No, the petition is not moot and academic. Criminal and administrative cases are distinct and independent remedies. An affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation and does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative action. The Affidavit of Desistance was executed more than three years after the Ombudsman’s decision, is couched in legal terms inconsistent with Ma. Ruby’s background, and does not negate the administrative liability already established.
2. Yes, the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the administrative complaint. Under Section 13 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 ( R.A. No. 6770 ), the Ombudsman has the mandate to act on complaints against any officer or employee of the government and enforce their administrative liability. This power is concurrent with other disciplinary authorities. The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers does not divest the Ombudsman of its constitutional and statutory authority to investigate and prosecute administrative cases against public school teachers.
3. No, respondent is not estopped from questioning jurisdiction. While respondent raised the jurisdictional issue only in his motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s decision, the rule is that jurisdiction may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings. Estoppel does not apply to a challenge against an agency’s exercise of jurisdiction when such challenge is raised while the case is still within that agency’s authority.