Title
Gonzales vs. Rosas
Case
G.R. No. 145363
Decision Date
Feb 23, 2004
A public school teacher, dismissed over alleged land mortgage misconduct, challenged administrative and criminal proceedings. Courts upheld dismissal, citing procedural errors and untimely filing.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199558)

Procedural Background

The initial administrative complaint against Gonzales and her co-teachers was triggered by allegations that they mortgaged Avila's property without her consent. The investigation was improperly conducted by Nagpacan, violating Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4670, which mandates that such cases be heard by a designated committee. Following an investigation, Nagpacan recommended Gonzales' dismissal, leading to a series of administrative actions culminating in her dismissal from service by Rosas.

Criminal Proceedings

Concurrently, Gonzales, alongside co-teacher Fe Padilla, faced criminal charges for estafa in relation to the same facts. The Regional Trial Court convicted Gonzales, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals acquitted her due to lack of proof of conspiracy and benefit from the alleged fraudulent act.

Ombudsman Complaint and Ruling

Subsequently, Gonzales filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the DECS officials for violations related to her earlier administrative proceedings. Graft Investigation Officer Plaridel Oscar Bohol initially found merit in the complaint, recommending suspensions for Nagpacan and Rosas and the reopening of Gonzales' administrative case. However, this finding was later disapproved by Administrative Adjudication Bureau Director Evelyn Baliton, who dismissed the complaint due to its untimely filing and the existence of adequate remedies in other judicial venues.

Court of Appeals Decision

Gonzales then sought a certiorari review from the Court of Appeals, challenging the Ombudsman’s dismissal of her administrative complaint. The appellate court ruled that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that Gonzales failed to pursue this within the required timeframe. They also concluded that Gonzales did not exemplify the grave abuse of discretion claimed, as the Ombudsman acted within legal bounds in dismissing the tardy complaint.

Arguments on Appeal

In her appeal, Gonzales argued that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion due to the administrative complaint's dismissal, asserting that a petition for certiorari was appropriate since the administrative decision had become final. However, the ruling clarified that the Office of the Ombudsman is classified as a quasi-judicial agency, thus making appeals to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 the designated recourse.

Ruling on Remedies and Procedures

The Supreme Court noted that Gonzales' failure to abide by the procedural timelines in

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.