Title: Alejandro v Office of the Ombudsman GR No. 173121 ate: A!ril 3" 2#13 $onente: %rion" &. $arties: petitioner: Franklin Alejandro respondent: Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, represented by Atty. Atty. aria Oli!ia "lena A. #o$as 'acts: Alfredo #ap Alejandro Alejandro o%ned I&O &ar 'ash. (hey (hey ha!e been illegally opening an ')I fire fire hydrant and using using it to %ash cars. cars. (he *+*-&I disco!ered this during an anti-%ater pilferage operation. (hus, the car-%ash boys %ere arrested and their %ater containers %ere confiscated. erein petitioner, Franklin Alejandro, is actually the f ather of Alfredo Alejandro. e is also the Barangay Chairman or Chairman or Punong Barangay of of Barangay /01, Binondo, anila. (he petitioner interfered %ith the *+*-&I2s operation by ordering se!eral men to unload the confiscated containers. (his inter!ention caused further commotion and created an opportunity for the apprehended car-%ash boys to escape. For this, the respondent Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, filed an administrati!e complaint against him. (he Office of the eputy Ombudsman found the petitioner guilty of gra!e misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the ser!ice. (he eputy Ombudsman ruled that the petitioner cannot o!ere$tend his authority as Barangay &hairman and induce other people to disrespect proper authorities. (he eputy Ombudsman also added that the petitioner had tolerated the illegal acts of I&O2s car%ash boys. A motion motion for reconsideration %as filed. It %as denied. (he petitioner appealed to the &A. (he &A dismissed the petition for premature filing. 3e should ha!e filed to the Ombudsman first.4 (he motion for reconsideration %as denied. (hereafter, the petitioner argued that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to order his dismissal from the ser!ice since under the 5ocal o!ernment &ode of 6006, an electi!e local official may be remo!ed from office only by the order of a proper court. (he Office of the eputy Ombudsman ans%ered that the petitioner failed to e$haust all administrati!e remedies as he should ha!e filed his appeal to the Ombudsman first. And that according to #A 7889 3(he Ombudsman Act of 6004, the Office of the Ombudsman has disciplinary authority o!er all electi!e and appointi!e officials. (ssues: 1. 'O+ the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction o!er electi!e Officials and has the po%er to order their dismissal from the ser!ice- )*+ )*+ 2. 'O+ the petitioner is liable for gra!e misconduct- )*+ )*+ Ratio: (he ponencia states that ;(he t%o la%s may be reconciled by understanding the !rimar, jurisdiction !rimar, jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction concurrent jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.< (he Ombudsman has !rimar, jurisdiction !rimar, jurisdiction to in!estigate any act or omission of a public officer or employee %ho is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as Sandiganbayan as pro!ided for in #.A. +o. 7889. (his jurisdiction e$tends only to public officials occupying occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 3)4 /8 and higher. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez , similar misconduct of those %ith a salary grade lo%er than /8 is %ithin the concurrent jurisdiction concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the regular courts or other in!estigati!e agencies. For administrati!e administrati!e cases in!ol!ing the concurrent jurisdiction concurrent jurisdiction of t%o or more disciplining authorities, the body %here the complaint is filed first, and %hich opts to take cogni=ance of the case, ac>uires jurisdiction to the e$clusion of of other tribunals e$ercising e$ercising concurrent jurisdiction. concurrent jurisdiction. A Barangay Barangay &hairman is under under ) 6?. @nder the 5&, 5&, the sangunniang panlungsod or or the sangguniang bayan has disciplinary authority o!er any electi!e barangay official. (hus, the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction o!er the case because the complaint %as initiall, filed there. filed there. It %as also found that the petitioner is liable for gra!e misconduct. (he &ourt e$plained that pursuant to )ection 103b4314 of #A 8679 ;'hile the petitioner has general change of the affairs in the barangay, the maintenance of peace and order is largely a police matter, %ith police authority being predominant, especially %hen the police has begun to act on an enforcement matter.< matter.< In the same light, )ection /? of #A 708 3the epartment of the Interior and 5ocal o!ernment Act of 60094 pro!ides that police authority is superior to the punong the punong barangay’s authority barangay’s authority in a situation %here the maintenance of peace and order has metamorphosed into crime pre!ention and arrest of criminal offenders. In this case, a criminal act %as already actually taking place. Also, the punong the punong barangay by by interfering %ith a legitimate police operation, effecti!ely interfered %ith the hierarchy of authority. Because of this, his misconduct is classified as gra!e. (he penalty for this is dismissal from ser!ice,
WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, petition DENIED.
