Case Digest (G.R. No. 91856)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Pedro Delijero, Jr., Respondent, G.R. No. 172635, October 20, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Office of the Ombudsman; the respondent is Pedro Delijero, Jr., a public school teacher assigned at Burauen Comprehensive National High School, Leyte. A Request for Assistance (RAS) was filed with the Ombudsman by the President of the Burauen Watchdog Committee for Good Government; the Ombudsman’s Graft Prevention & Control Officer recommended upgrading the RAS into administrative and criminal charges.
The complaint alleged that respondent courted a 12‑year‑old first‑year high school student, Myra dela Cruz, by sending love letters, a Valentine’s card and money, and that on April 7, 2003 he kissed Myra in his classroom; affidavits of Myra and several classmates recounted these acts. Respondent filed a counter‑affidavit denying the kiss and contending the relationship was platonic, claiming instead that Myra pursued him and pressured him to reciprocate.
The Ombudsman conducted investigatory proceedings; respondent filed a counter‑affidavit, witness affidavit and exhibits, but later submitted a Manifestation informing the Ombudsman of a separate administrative complaint then pending with the Department of Education (DepEd) Regional Office VIII. On May 17, 2004 the Ombudsman found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed dismissal (with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification). A motion for reconsideration was denied and respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On June 7, 2005 the CA in CA‑G.R. SP No. 00017 granted respondent’s petition, set aside the Ombudsman’s decision and order, and, motu proprio, ruled the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction because administrative proceedings involving public school teachers are governed by Republic Act No. 4670 (the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) and initially heard by the DepEd committee under Section 9; the CA also held the Ombudsman’s power to impose sanction...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Office of the Ombudsman have administrative disciplinary authority over public school teachers, and if so, is that authority exclusive or concurrent with the disciplinary committee provided under Section 9 of RA 4670?
- Does Section 9 of RA 4670 effectively exempt public school teachers from the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority in a manner violative of the Constitution?
- Is the Ombudsman’s power to determine administrative liability and to direct implementation of penalties merely r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)