Office of the Ombudsman vs. Estandarte

Factual Background

On August 17, 1998, People’s Graftwatch, through its Chairman, Dr. Patricio Y. Tan, referred to the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) a complaint by the Faculty Club and Department Heads of Ramon Torres National High School against Estandarte, involving thirty-three allegations of improprieties. The allegations encompassed alleged illegal handling of school funds, irregular financial transactions, perjury, and abuse of authority. The complaint, however, was not subscribed and sworn to by the complainants and was not supported by sworn statements of witnesses. It also lacked the statement of non-forum shopping required by CSC Resolution No. 95-3099 dated May 9, 1995. Because of these defects, the Ombudsman treated the submission as a request for assistance and docketed it as RAS-VIS 98-1030.

On August 31, 1998, the Ombudsman forwarded the matter to the DECS-Region VI and the Commission on Audit (COA) for action pursuant to Section 15(2) of Republic Act No. 6770. On September 29, 1998, DECS-Region VI dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with formalities under Executive Order No. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987), without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate complaint. The Faculty Club then filed a formal complaint sworn and subscribed before DECS-Region VI on February 5, 1999, but in a letter dated February 12, 1999, the office dismissed the complaint outright for lack of verification and certification against forum shopping. After DECS-Region VI received the verification and certification on March 22, 1999, the case was entitled “Faculty and Department Heads of the Ramon Torres National High School, Bago City v. Heidi Estandarte.”

DECS-Region VI required Estandarte to answer on April 19, 1999. She filed her answer on June 7, 1999. A Special Investigating Committee was created, with DECS-Region VI approving its composition on July 26, 1999. The Committee subpoenaed documents through a subpoena duces tecum directed to the State Auditor, but the State Auditor refused, stating the documents were being used in pending criminal and administrative cases before the Ombudsman involving the same parties. A pre-hearing conference was held on September 17, 1999, and on December 6, 1999, the Committee recommended dismissal on the ground of forum shopping.

Meanwhile, the COA referred the complaint against Estandarte to the Provincial Auditor of Negros Occidental, Crispin A. Pinaga, Jr.. Pinaga investigated and reported that Estandarte’s actions connected with twenty-four of the thirty-three allegations were “within the bounds of propriety.” The Provincial Auditor’s report identified, among others, concerns involving alleged unauthorized imposition of a miscellaneous fee per student, issues related to firearms purchased and registered under Estandarte’s name using money allegedly sourced from student government funds, alleged disposition and lack of accounting regarding proceeds from the old newspaper, and alleged improper handling of cash and in-kind donations, including failure to properly channel and account the donations through required processes.

On the basis of the Provincial Auditor’s findings, the Ombudsman (Visayas) issued a Memorandum dated October 8, 1999 recommending that the request be upgraded to criminal and administrative cases, that the Provincial Auditor be required to submit affidavits to substantiate findings, and that a preventive suspension order be issued upon receipt of affidavits. The Memorandum also recommended closing and terminating RAS-VIS-98-1030.

Ombudsman Referral, DECS Proceedings, and Subsequent Transfer Back

Afterward, the Ombudsman decided to refer the administrative aspect of the case—OMB-VIS-ADM-99-0941 titled “COA Region 6, Office of the Provincial Auditor v. Heidi Estandarte”—to DECS-Region VI for administrative adjudication under Section 23(2) of Republic Act No. 6770, and forwarded the complete records to DECS-Region VI on November 29, 1999. However, DECS-Region VI did not receive the referral, as it inquired on December 7, 1999 about the status of RAS-VIS-98-1030. The Ombudsman conducted further inquiries on March 9, 2000 and September 21, 2000, and on November 22, 2000, DECS-Region VI informed the Ombudsman that no referral had been received. The Ombudsman then forwarded the records again, and DECS-Region VI received them on December 26, 2000. DECS-Region VI directed consolidation of the cases, and the hearing by the Special Investigating Committee resumed.

In 2001, the Ombudsman considered OMB-VIS-ADM-99-0941 closed and terminated, and the matter proceeded primarily in the DECS forum. On April 29, 2002, the Faculty Club requested that the Ombudsman take over for speedier disposition. Members of the Faculty Club also wrote to the Ombudsman complaining of oppression and requesting intervention. On July 5, 2002, the Ombudsman informed DECS-Region VI that it would not object to return of the case to the Ombudsman.

On August 16, 2002, DECS-Region VI turned over the records of the case to the Ombudsman (Visayas) for adjudication, stating it appeared the complainants intended the case to be heard by the Ombudsman and that the Ombudsman had manifested willingness to reassume jurisdiction. The case was docketed as OMB-V-A-02-0572-J. The Ombudsman set the case for preliminary conference on November 6, 2002.

Estandarte then filed an Urgent Motion to Remand the case to DECS-Region VI, arguing that jurisdiction had become exclusively vested in DECS-Region VI. On December 17, 2002, the Ombudsman denied the motion and reasoned it was not barred from assuming jurisdiction after DECS-Region VI had relinquished its jurisdiction. Estandarte’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. The preliminary conference was reset and set for May 21, 2003, but Estandarte failed to attend. The Ombudsman ordered that she was deemed to have waived her right to a formal investigation unless she could justify her absence. Estandarte’s counsel sought postponement and indicated intent to challenge the denial of the motion to remand through a petition for certiorari. The Ombudsman reset the preliminary conference to July 30, 2003, and Estandarte subsequently filed motions to suspend proceedings and to postpone again, including motions for reconsideration and voluntary inhibition, but the Ombudsman proceeded with the preliminary conference with only the complainants present because of failure to furnish a copy of the motions to the complainants. After the preliminary conference, the case was submitted for resolution.

Ombudsman’s Administrative Decision and the CA Proceedings

In a Decision dated March 9, 2004, the Ombudsman (Visayas) found Estandarte guilty of grave misconduct. It imposed the penalty of Dismissal from Service, with perpetual disqualification to hold public office and forfeiture of all benefits, and it directed cancellation of her Civil Service eligibilities. The Ombudsman held that Estandarte’s failure to issue receipts for donations received, in violation of Sections 63, 68, and 112 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1445, and her alleged “appropriation for personal use” of proceeds from the sale of old newspapers and the counterpart contribution of the students for the diploma case, constituted grave misconduct. The Ombudsman also noted that the submission of receipts that allegedly did not prove purchase of disputed items suggested predisposition to commit misrepresentation.

Estandarte sought review with the CA and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. She alleged denial of due process when her request for a formal investigation was denied, argued that DECS-Region VI had jurisdiction, and claimed the Ombudsman lacked impartiality. The CA issued a TRO on September 10, 2004 and later granted a writ of preliminary injunction in a resolution dated November 10, 2004. On June 14, 2005, the CA issued the assailed decision. It granted Estandarte’s petition, set aside the Ombudsman’s March 9, 2004 decision and the June 3, 2004 order, and directed the Ombudsman to remand the record of OMB-VIS-ADM-99-0941 to the DECS Special Investigating Committee created on July 26, 1999 for further proceedings with dispatch.

The CA held that the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by taking over after the Ombudsman had issued a memorandum considering the case closed and terminated and after jurisdiction had attached to the Special Investigating Committee. The CA invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, stating that once jurisdiction attaches to the proper investigative body, it continues until termination of the case. The CA cited Fabella v. Court of Appeals and Emin v. de Leon to support that Republic Act No. 4670 specifically covers and governs administrative proceedings involving public school teachers, with original and exclusive jurisdiction lodged in the DECS investigating committee created under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4670. The CA further held that, even assuming Ombudsman had jurisdiction, the Ombudsman’s actions would be set aside for denial of substantive and procedural due process. It also relied on Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman to conclude that the Ombudsman lacked authority to directly impose dismissal as its power was merely recommendatory.

The Parties’ Contentions

The Ombudsman argued that it had full administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over public officials and employees under its constitutional and statutory authority, including the lesser power to enforce sanctions. It maintained that the CA’s reliance on what it characterized as an obiter dictum in Tapiador was a grave error and invoked later rulings in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, et al., (G.R. No. 160675, promulgated on June 16, 2006), to support that the Ombudsman’s authority to implement judgments had been settled.

The Ombudsman also argued that it had concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction with DECS and