G.R. No. 173121 - Alejandro vs. Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau

On May 4, 2000, the Head of the Non-Revenue Water Reduction Department of Manila Water Services, Inc. (MWSI) received a report that Mico Car Wash (MICO), owned by Alfredo Rap Alejandro, was illegally opening an MWSI fire hydrant to operate a car-wash business in Binondo, Manila.

On May 10, 2000, MWSI, in coordination with the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), conducted an anti-water pilferage operation and discovered that car-wash boys of MICO were illegally obtaining water from an MWSI fire hydrant.

During the operation, PNP-CIDG arrested the car-wash boys and confiscated the containers used for water collection.

The petitioner, who is the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 293, Zone 28, Binondo, Manila, intervened by ordering several men to unload the confiscated containers.

This intervention created a commotion that allowed the arrested car-wash boys to escape.

On August 5, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau filed an administrative complaint against the petitioner for interfering with a legitimate police operation and for his blatant refusal to recognize the joint police activity.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman rendered a decision on August 20, 2004, finding the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal from service. The decision emphasized that as Barangay Chairman, the petitioner overstepped his authority and tolerated illegal acts by MICO’s car-wash boys.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on November 2, 2004.

He then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA dismissed his petition on February 21, 2006 for prematurity, holding that he had not exhausted all administrative remedies – specifically, he had not appealed directly to the Ombudsman.

A subsequent motion for reconsideration of the CA ruling was also denied on June 15, 2006.

The petitioner contended that the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman should be deemed an exhaustion of administrative remedies.

He argued that the Office of the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to order his dismissal since, under Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991), an elective local official can be removed from office only by the order of a proper court.

Additionally, he claimed that the penalty of dismissal was not warranted given the available facts.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies because he failed to appeal the decision to the Ombudsman.

It emphasized that under RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the disciplinary authority over public officials, including elective ones, lies with the Office of the Ombudsman, which indeed had sufficient evidence to justify the petitioner’s dismissal.

Whether the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that a request for reconsideration be directed to the Ombudsman after the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman has rendered its decision.
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over elective officials and the power to order their dismissal from service.
Whether the petitioner’s act of interfering with a legitimate police operation constitutes grave misconduct warranting his dismissal.