G.R. No. 172700 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Rodriguez

On August 26, 2003, the Ombudsman in Visayas received a complaint against Rolson Rodriguez, punong barangay of Brgy. Sto. Rosario, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, charging him with abuse of authority, dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, and neglect of duty.
On September 1, 2003, a similar complaint was concurrently filed before the sangguniang bayan of Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, through vice-mayor Jose G. Yulo, alleging similar misconduct.

The municipal vice-mayor, acting on the complaint in the sangguniang bayan, issued a notice on September 8, 2003, requiring Rodriguez to file an answer within 15 days.
On September 23, 2003, Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss the sangguniang bayan case, arguing that the allegations lacked factual basis and did not constitute any violation of law.
On October 22, 2003, in a compliance, Rodriguez contended that the complainants had engaged in forum shopping by filing identical complaints in different venues.
Meanwhile, the Ombudsman, on September 10, 2003, similarly required Rodriguez to file his answer in the Ombudsman's case.
On October 24, 2003, Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss the Ombudsman’s case on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping, claiming that the sangguniang bayan had already acquired jurisdiction over him as of September 8, 2003.

The municipal vice-mayor initially set the case for hearing on October 3, 2003, which was later reset due to the absence of counsel for complainants.
When the case was rescheduled, complainants’ counsel indicated the desire to withdraw the administrative complaint before the sangguniang bayan in order to prioritize the Ombudsman complaint.
On October 29, 2003, complainants formally filed a motion to withdraw the complaint in the sangguniang bayan.
Despite the withdrawal motion, Rodriguez requested that the complaint be dismissed based on forum shopping, insisting that the ground should be limited to that issue.

On January 29, 2004, the Ombudsman ordered both parties to submit their respective verified position papers.
Rodriguez moved for reconsideration, arguing that the pending motion to dismiss should affect the case’s status.
On March 11, 2004, the Ombudsman clarified that a motion to dismiss was a prohibited pleading under Section 5(g) of Rule III of Administrative Order No. 17, reiterating the requirement for Rodriguez to file his position paper.
In his position paper, Rodriguez insisted that the sangguniang bayan maintained jurisdiction over the pending complaint, as he had not received any formal resolution dismissing the case there.
Complainants maintained in their oppositions that the case had indeed been dismissed in the sangguniang bayan, while Rodriguez, in his rejoinder, questioned the validity of the sangguniang bayan’s resolution, noting procedural deficiencies (e.g., only the vice-mayor had signed it).

On September 21, 2004, the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Rodriguez guilty of dishonesty and oppression, imposing the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, disqualification from holding public office, and forfeiture of civil service eligibilities.
Rodriguez filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman on January 12, 2005.
On March 8, 2005, the Ombudsman directed the mayor of Binalbagan to implement the dismissal penalty against Rodriguez.

Subsequently, Rodriguez petitioned for review in the Court of Appeals with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, contesting the Ombudsman's decision.
On May 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals set aside the Ombudsman's decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and directed the sangguniang bayan to proceed with the hearing.
The appellate court based its ruling on Section 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, noting that the sangguniang bayan had served a notice on Rodriguez on September 8, 2003, preceding the Ombudsman's notice on September 10, 2003.

The Ombudsman argued that filing a complaint imbues the corresponding agency with jurisdiction, asserting that its taking cognizance precluded the involvement of other bodies.
Rodriguez maintained that jurisdiction over his person in administrative matters is acquired through the service of summons or compulsory process, thus contending that the sangguniang bayan had acquired primary jurisdiction as of September 8, 2003.
The dispute extended to the interpretation and application of forum shopping rules and concurrent jurisdiction, especially concerning administrative complaints against elective barangay officials.

Whether the filing of identical administrative complaints by the complainants in both the Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan constituted a violation of the rule against forum shopping.
Whether the jurisdiction over private respondent Rolson Rodriguez was first acquired by the sangguniang bayan (through the service of summons) or by the Ombudsman (through the filing and taking of cognizance of the administrative complaint).