G.R. No. 181622 - Genesis Investment, Inc. vs. Heirs of Ebarasabal

Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr. was employed as a public school teacher at Burauen Comprehensive National High School, Burauen, Leyte.
A complaint for Grave Misconduct was initiated against him, filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in response to a Request for Assistance (RAS) from the President of the Burauen Watchdog Committee for Good Government.
An evaluation report by Philip Camiguing, Graft Prevention & Control Officer I, recommended upgrading the RAS into both administrative and criminal complaints.

The complainant, Cleofas P. dela Cruz, mother of the alleged victim Myra dela Cruz, reported that her 12-year-old daughter, then a first-year high school student, was courted by her 52-year-old Mathematics teacher, Pedro Delijero, Jr.
Evidence presented included handwritten love letters, a Valentine’s card, and a monetary allowance of Two Hundred Pesos given by the respondent to Myra.
Myra’s Affidavit detailed events, including:

The initiation of a courtship on August 12, 2002, through the sending of love notes and valentines cards via classmates.
An incident on April 7, 2003, where the respondent allegedly kissed her on the cheek in a setting that generated fear, causing her to push him away and exit the room.

Joint Affidavits from Myra’s classmates corroborated that the respondent had delivered love letters and cards, confirming his intent to court her.

In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent denied the allegation of kissing Myra and claimed that:

Myra had fallen in love with him and initiated communication by writing love letters.
His responses were a result of being coerced by Myra’s threats of suicide.
The relationship between them was merely platonic.

During the preliminary conference organized by the petitioner, the parties were directed to submit position papers; however, respondent filed a Manifestation instead, noting that an administrative complaint had already been filed against him before the Office of the Regional Director, DepEd, Regional Office VIII, Palo, Leyte.

On May 17, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct.
The penalty imposed included dismissal from public service, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Respondent subsequently moved for reconsideration, seeking to change the penalty from dismissal to suspension, but the motion was denied on May 14, 2004.

Respondent appealed the adverse decision and the case eventually reached the Court of Appeals (CA).
On June 7, 2005, the CA granted respondent’s petition by setting aside the Ombudsman’s decision.
The CA based its ruling on the contention that:

Under Republic Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers), administrative cases involving public school teachers should be heard by a committee composed of the school superintendent, a representative of the teachers’ organization, and a division supervisor, rather than by the Ombudsman directly.
Even if the Ombudsman had jurisdiction, its powers were limited to recommending sanctions and not imposing them directly.

Petitioner’s subsequent Omnibus Motion to Intervene and for Reconsideration was denied on May 2, 2006.

Respondent actively participated in the administrative proceedings before the Ombudsman by filing counter-affidavits, witness affidavits, and various motions, including requests for reconsideration of suspensions.
Despite this active engagement, respondent later challenged the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, which was analyzed under the doctrines of estoppel and laches.
The case presented complexities regarding multiple avenues for administrative redress (Ombudsman versus DECS committees) and the timing of jurisdictional challenges.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has full and concurrent administrative disciplinary authority over public school teachers alongside the Department of Education (DECS), given the provisions of Republic Act No. 4670.

Whether Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4670 effectively removes public school teachers from the purview of the Ombudsman's disciplinary powers by mandating that cases be heard initially by a specially composed committee.
Whether interpreting Section 9 in such a manner renders the classification of teachers as a special privileged class unconstitutional.

Whether the Ombudsman’s authority to determine and impose administrative liability on an erring public official or employee is mandatory or purely recommendatory, especially considering cases such as Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano, Masing, and Laja.