Case Digest (G.R. No. 145363)
Facts:
Mercedes B. Gonzales v. Nilo L. Rosas and Ricardo P. Nagpacan, G.R. No. 145363, February 23, 2004, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Mercedes B. Gonzales was a public school teacher who resigned (or was considered resigned) from the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in 1994 following administrative charges and decisions by DECS officials; respondents are Nilo L. Rosas and Ricardo P. Nagpacan, DECS officials involved in those proceedings.In 1993 Purita Avila filed an administrative complaint with DECS, Division of City Schools, 3rd District, Caloocan City, accusing petitioner and co-teachers of mortgaging Avila’s land without her consent. Contrary to Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (R.A. No. 4670), respondent Ricardo Nagpacan initially heard the case on his own and, on April 22, 1994, issued a Report of Investigation recommending dismissal. Thereafter Schools Division Superintendent Norma Abracia recommended a 30-day suspension (June 8, 1994); respondent Nilo Rosas, as DECS-NCR Director, rendered a decision dismissing petitioner (July 22, 1994); and then DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria issued a 2nd indorsement (Sept. 19, 1994) affirming Rosas, later modifying the disposition (Oct. 9, 1996) by considering petitioner resigned and denying reconsideration (Oct. 27, 1997).
Separately, criminal proceedings based on the same facts were filed before the Regional Trial Court, which convicted petitioner of estafa on May 30, 1995. On appeal the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 18268, acquitted petitioner on August 28, 1997 for lack of proof of conspiracy or personal benefit.
Petitioner did not seek judicial relief to challenge the alleged jurisdictional defect of the administrative proceedings under R.A. No. 4670. Instead she filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on February 25, 1999 (OMB-ADM-0-99-0177) against Abracia, Gloria, Nagpacan and Rosas for violation of Section 9. Graft Investigation Officer Plaridel Bohol found the complaint sufficient and recommended sanctions and reopening of the DECS administrative case (decision dated August 4, 1999). Administrative Adjudication Bureau (ADB) Director Evelyn Baliton, however, disapproved Bohol’s findings and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was filed five years after the act complained of and that petitioner had an adequate remedy in another body as contemplated by Section 20 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989; Baliton’s memorandum of September 23, 1999 was approved by the Assistant Ombudsman.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 56251), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in adopting Baliton’s memorandum. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on October 2, 2000, holding that appeals from quasi‑ju...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the Ombudsman’s dismissal of petitioner’s administrative complaint, or was appeal under Rule 43 the adequate remedy?
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s administrative complaint as time‑barred and for having an adequate remedy elsewhere, and was Director Baliton estopped by Graft Investigation...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)