G.R. No. L-8029 - Espique vs. Espique

Petitioner Mercedes B. Gonzales was a public school teacher from 1965 until her forced resignation in 1994.
The administrative proceedings and eventual criminal charges stemmed from allegations related to her tenure as Assistant Principal at Caloocan Elementary School, Unit II.
The case also involved her co-teachers, Fe Padilla and Milagros Zablan, who were similarly implicated in the administrative complaint.

In 1993, Purita Avila filed an administrative complaint before the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Division of City Schools, 3rd District, Caloocan City.
The complaint charged Gonzales and her co-teachers with grave misconduct, dishonesty, and estafa, alleging that they mortgaged a parcel of land owned by Avila (covered by Torrens Certificate of Title No. 260609) without her consent.
The complaint was filed in contravention of Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers), which specifically provides the proper procedure for administrative hearings against teachers.

Respondent Ricardo Nagpacan, Administrative Officer III of the City Schools, initially conducted the hearing in violation of the mandatory composition requirements under Section 9 of RA 4670.
After the initial hearing, Nagpacan issued a Report of Investigation on April 22, 1994, recommending the dismissal of Gonzales from service.
The Schools Division Superintendent, Norma Abracia, then forwarded a 1st Indorsement on June 8, 1994 recommending immediate suspension, followed by a decision from DECS-National Capital Region Director Nilo Rosas on July 22, 1994, which ultimately dismissed her from service.
Subsequent actions by then DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria through a 2nd Indorsement (September 19, 1994) and later resolutions (October 9, 1996, and October 27, 1997) confirmed her forced resignation and denied her plea for reconsideration.

Arising from the same set of facts, petitioner Gonzales and co-accused Fe Padilla were criminally charged with estafa before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131.
The Information alleged that both conspired, deceptive in nature, to fraudulently mortgage the property owned by Purita Avila, securing a loan amounting to P30,000.00.
On May 30, 1995, Gonzales was convicted and sentenced to a term contingent on the Indeterminate Sentence Law; however, the Court of Appeals later acquitted her based on lack of evidence showing her active conspiracy or benefit from the fraudulent act.

Instead of seeking judicial relief for the administrative proceedings and jurisdictional conflict, petitioner Gonzales filed an administrative complaint on February 25, 1999, before the Office of the Ombudsman alleging violation of Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers by Abracia, Gloria, Nagpacan, and Rosas.
Graft Investigation Officer Plaridel Oscar Bohol found the complaint sufficient and recommended that administrative adjudication be conducted against the respondents.

Director Evelyn Baliton of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau disapproved Bohol’s findings and dismissed the administrative complaint on grounds including:

The complaint was filed nearly five years after the alleged act (making it untimely under Section 4(a), Rule III, of the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure).
The existence of an adequate remedy available in another judicial or quasi-judicial forum.

Undeterred, petitioner Gonzales pursued a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56251) arguing that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit, noting that even assuming certiorari was available, it was filed untimely and that the proper remedy under Rule 43 (for quasi-judicial agencies) had not been utilized.

Whether petitioner Gonzales could validly resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 despite an available appeal under Rule 43 for actions taken by the Office of the Ombudsman.

The petitioner argued that with the administrative decision being final and already unappealable by a motion for reconsideration, Rule 65 was the proper remedy.
The issue further encompassed whether a petition for certificari could substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

Whether the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the administrative complaint (on grounds of untimeliness and existence of an adequate alternative remedy) constituted grave abuse of discretion.

The petitioner contended that Director Baliton was estopped from dismissing the complaint due to the investigative findings of Graft Investigation Officer Bohol.
The interpretation of Section 20 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and its function (directory versus mandatory) also formed a central point of contention.

Whether the administrative proceedings suffered from procedural defects, particularly regarding the initial hearing before an improperly composed committee as mandated by Section 9 of RA 4670.

Whether the lapse in filing within the prescribed period (fifteen days from notice) undermined petitioners’ claim for certiorari.