Case Digest (G.R. No. 165416)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 165416)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. Florita A. Masing and Jocelyn A. Tayactac, G.R. Nos. 165416, 165584, 165731, January 22, 2008, the Supreme Court First Division, Puno, C.J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Office of the Ombudsman; the respondents are Florita A. Masing (former Principal of the Davao City Integrated Special School) and Jocelyn A. Tayactac (an office clerk at the same school). Complainant-parents of DCISS pupils — including Paul L. Cansino, Felicidad Mojica, Venerando Mojica and Ricarte L. Mamparo — filed administrative complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao in 1997 alleging unauthorized collection of fees, non-remittance of authorized fees, failure to account for public funds, and violations of the Code of Conduct (R.A. No. 6713); the cases were docketed as OMB-MIN-ADM-97-193, -249, -253, -254 and, separately, OMB-MIN-ADM-97-282.
After motions to dismiss claiming exclusive DECS jurisdiction under Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670 (the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) were denied, the Ombudsman for Mindanao rendered dispositive administrative decisions: on June 30, 2000 it dismissed Masing from the service and suspended Tayactac for six months (in OMB-MIN-ADM-97-193, -249, -253, -254); in the separate docket (OMB-MIN-ADM-97-282) it found Masing guilty and ordered six months suspension without pay on December 27, 1999. Motions for reconsideration before the Ombudsman were denied.
Respondents sought relief in the Court of Appeals by petitions for review under Rule 43: CA-G.R. SP No. 61993 (challenging the June 30, 2000 joint decision) and CA-G.R. SP No. 58735 (challenging OMB-MIN-ADM-97-282). On February 27, 2004 and July 31, 2003, respectively, the Court of Appeals set aside the Ombudsman decisions and ordered reinstatement with backwages in one case and salary due in the other. The Office of the Ombudsman, which had not been impleaded, filed Omnibus Motions to Intervene and for Reconsideration in the Court of Appeals; the CA denied those motions on grounds that (1) intervention by the quasi-judicial body whose decision was on appeal was improper and (2) intervention was belated under Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. The CA denials were in resolutions dated September 27 and September 30, 2004.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed petitions with this Court (docketed as G.R. No. 165416 and G.R. No. 165584); the complainant-parents filed their own petition (G.R. No. 165731). The Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 165416 and 165584 (Resolution, November 9, 2005) and later consolidated G.R. No. 165731 (Resolution, June 21, 2006). The central questions presented were whether the Ombudsman could properly intervene and seek reconsideration before the Court of Appeals and whether the Ombudsman has authority to directly discipline public school teachers and employees or is limited to recommending sanctions to DECS.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in denying the Office of the Ombudsman’s motions to intervene and for reconsideration?
- May the Office of the Ombudsman directly discipline public school teachers and employees (including ordering removal, suspension or other administrative penalties), or is its role merely recommendatory with implementation left exclusively to DECS under Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)