ALEJANDRO v.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

April 13, 2013 | Brion, J. | Certiorari | Jurisdiction of Courts Sandiganbayan For Criminal Procedure
PETITIONERS: Franklin Alejandro
RESPONDENTS: Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, represented by Atty. Maria Olivia
Elena A. Roxas
SUMMARY: Barangay Chairman Alejandro interfered with a police operation that involves his son. His intereference
resulted to commotion and even to the escape of the criminal offenders. A case for dismissal against Alejandro was filed
with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman. Alejandro was found guilty of grave misconduct and was dismissed from
service. One of the defense in his appeal is that, the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to order his dismissal. SC
ruled that Office of the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over his case, and the assailed decision is affirmed
DOCTRINE: In administrative cases involving 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.
FACTS:
1. WoN the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies
1. The MWSI (Manila Waters Services, Inc) in coordination
requires a request for reconsideration from the Office of the
with the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
Deputy Ombudsman to the Ombudsman for the purpose of a
(PNP-CIDG) conducted an anti-water pilferage operation
Rule 43 review NO
against MICO (Mico Car Wash) in response to a report that
2. WoN the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over
MICO, owned by Algredo Rap Alejandro, has been illegally
elective officials and has the power to order their dismissal
opening an MWSI fire hydrant and using it to operate its carfrom the service YES
wash business in Binondo, Manila.
3. WoN Petitioner's act constitutes grave misconduct to
2. During the investigation, It was discovered that MICOs
warrant his dismissal - YES
carwash boys indeed had been illegally getting water from a
MWSI fire hydrant. PNP-CIDG arrested the carwash boys and
RULING: Petition DENIED.
confiscated the containers used in getting water. HOWEVER,
at this point, the petitioner, Alfredos father and the Barangay
RATIO:
Chairman or punong barangay of Barangay 293, Zone 28,
1. No further need exists to exhaust administrative remedies
Binondo, Manila, interfered with the PNP-CIDGs operation
from the decisions of the Deputy Ombudsman because he was
by ordering several men to unload the confiscated containers.
acting in behalf of the Ombudsman. Section 7, Rule III of
This intervention caused further commotion and created an
Administrative Order No. 07 provides that a motion for
opportunity for the apprehended car-wash boys to escape.
reconsideration or a petition for certiorari may be filed in all
3. An administrative complaint was filed against petitioner
cases where the penalty imposed is not one involving public
Alejandro in the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman. Alejandro
censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than 1 month, or
was found guilty of grave misconduct and it was ordered that
a fine equivalent to 1 month salary. THere is no further need to
he be dismissed from the service. It was held that he has no
review the case at the administrative level since the Deputy
authority as Baranggay Chairman to unwarrantedly interfere
Ombudsman has already acted on the case and he was acting
with legitimate police operations and induce other people to
for and in behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman.
disrespect proper authorities.
2. The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over
4. Petitioner Alejandro filed a Petition for review under Rule
administrative jurisdiction over administrative cases
43 of ROC, by the CA dismissed it for the ground that he
which are within the jurisdiction of the regular courts or
failed to exhaust proper administrative remedies because he
administrative agencies. The Office of the Ombudsman was
did not appeal the Deputy Ombudsman's decision to the
tasked by the Constitution to exercise disciplinary authority
Ombudsman.
over all elective and appointive officials, save only for
5. PETITIONER: Filing an MR to the Overall Deputy
impeachable officers. While both the Ombudsman Act and the
Ombudsman shall be considered as an exhaustion of
Local Government Code both provide for the procedure to
administrative remedies. Alejandro further claimed that the
discipline elective officials, the seeming conflicts between the
Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to order his
two laws have been resolved in previous cases. In Hagad v
dismissal from the service since under RA 7160 (Local
Gozo-Dadole, the court held that there is nothing in either law
Government Code of 1991) an elective local official may be
that are so inconsistent as to warrant to strike down one. The
removed from office only by the order of a proper court.
two laws may be reconciled by understanding the primary
He also posits the the penalty of dismissal is unwarranted
jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction of the Office of the
under the available facts. RESPONDENTS: Appeal to the
Ombudsman. PRIMARY JURISDICTION (According to RA
Office of the Ombudsman is an administrative remedy
6770): to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or
available to Alejandro. Furthermore, the Office of the
employee who is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Ombudsman has disciplinary authority over all elective and
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION (with regular courts or
appointive officials. It also asserted that sufficient evidence
other investigative agencies): act or omission of a public
exists to justify the petitioner's dismissal from the service.
officer or employee occupying a salary grade lower than 27.
In administrative cases involving concurrent jurisdiction
ISSUE:
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. (A baranggay
chairman has a salary grade 14) The Sangguniang bayan has
concurrent jurisdiction over complaints against any elective
baranggay official under RA 7160, however the complaint was
initially filed with the Office of the Ombudsman to the
exclusion of the sangguniang bayan.
3. Maintenane of peace and order is a function both of the
police and the Barangay Chairman, but crime prevention is
largely a police matter. In the case at hand, it is clear that
acting in his official duty, Alejandro interferred with the
legitimate police operation of the PNP-CIDG. Also, by
examining the duties of a Barangay Chairman and the police,

the authority of the police is superior to the punong barangay's

authority in a situation where the maintenance of peace and
order has metamorphosed into crime prevention and the arrest
of criminal offenders. It is clear that a criminal act was
actually taking place when Alejandro interfered with the
operations. Also in another perspective, the duty of Alejandro
to maintain peace and order must be related to his function of
assisting local executive officials which could include law
enforcers. At the very least respect the operation. This
misconduct of Alejandro was aggravated by the fact that the
reason for his interference is that his son was involved in the
criminal activity being apprehended by the operation.
Alejandro was guilty of grave misconduct.