Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez Rodriguez | ema July 23, 2010 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner OMBUDSMAN, petitioner , vs. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, respondent . CARPIO, J.: J.: SUMMARY: Two SUMMARY: Two complaints fo a!us" of aut#oity, $is#on"sty, $is#on"sty, miscon$uct, an$ n"%l"ct w"" fil"$ a%ainst P&' Ro$i%u"(, on" in t#" )an%%unian% 'ayan *)'+ of 'inal!a%an, "%os Occi$"ntal, an$ anot#" in t#" Om!u$sman. T#" complaint !"fo" t#" Om!u$sman was fil"$ on Au%. 2-, 2003 complaint in t#" )' was fil"$ )"pt. 1. )' s"v"$ notic" on Ro$i%u"( on )"pt. /, w#il" Om!u$sman $i$ so on )"pt. 10. Aft" s"v"al motions fil"$, all"%ation of foum s#oppin%, motion to $ismiss fil"$ !y Ro$i%u"( t#" complainants "v"ntually wit#$"w t#" )' complaint so t#"y coul$ focus on t#" complaint wit# t#" Om!u$sman. In t#" Om!u$sman poc""$in%, Ro$i%u"( fil"$ T, claimin% t#at t#" )' still #a$ 4uis$iction !"caus" #" n"v" "c"iv"$ a $"cision o "solution $ismissin% t#at complaint. Complainants a%u"$ t#at t#" cas" was $ismiss"$ aft" t#" 5ic"6ayo %ant"$ t#"i motion to wit#$aw. Ro$i%u"( "pli"$ t#at t#" $ismissal was invali$ !"caus" only t#" vic"6mayo si%n"$ it. 7at", Om!u$sman "n$""$ a $"cision $ismissin% Ro$i%u"( fom #is position, $is8ualifyin% #im fom pu!lic offic", an$ fof"itin% #is !"n"fits an$ C)C "li%i!ility. On app"al, CA "v"s"$, #ol$in% t#at )' still #a$ 4uis$iction !"caus" it was t#" fist to s"v" notic" on Ro$i%u"(. On app"al !y t#" Om!u$sman, )C "v"s"$ CA an$ affim"$ t#" Om!u$sman $"cision, ulin% t#at t#" Om!u$sman #a$ concu"nt 4uis$iction wit# t#" )' un$" RA /9; an$ t#" 7"cisin% concu"nt 4uis$iction, t#" !o$y in w&c t#" complaint is fil"$ fist, an$ w#ic# opts to ta?" co%ni(anc" of t#" cas", ac8ui"s 4uis$iction to t#" ">clusion of ot#" ti!unals ">"cisin% concu"nt 4uis$iction, an$ t#" 4uis$iction continu"s until t#" cas" is t"minat"$. CAB: Complaint wit# t#" Om!u$sman was fil"$ fist, so w#"n it too? of co%ni(anc" of opt"$ to assum" 4uis$iction ov" t#" cas", 4uis$iction #a$ al"a$y v"st"$, to t#" ">clusion of t#" )'. Om!u$sman $"cision was t#us "n$""$ wit# 4uis$iction an$ s#oul$ !" up#"l$. DOCTRINE: @n$" DOCTRINE: @n$" 7
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
Au%. 2-, 2003 B Om!u$sman Om!u$sman fo 5isayas 5isayas *O'+ "c"iv"$ a complaint complaint a%ainst P&' Rolson RORI<@D of )to. Rosaio, 'inal!a%an, "%os Occi$"ntal. T#" complaint all"%"$ a!us" of aut#oity, $is#on"sty, $is#on"sty, opp"ssion, miscon$uct in offic", an$ n"%l"ct of $uty. )"p. 1, 2003 B )an%%unian% 'ayan *)'+ of 'inal!a%an, t#ou%# 5ic"6ayo Jos" <. E@7O, "c"iv"$ a simila complaint a%ainst Ro$i%u"(. no no statement as to who the complainants were were )"p. /, 2003 B Eulo issu"$ a notic" o$"in% Ro$i%u"( to fil" an answ" wit#in 1 $ays fom "c"ipt of suc# notic". )"p, 10, 2003 B O' "8ui"$ Ro$i%u"( to fil" #is answ". )"p. 23, 2003 B Ro$i%u"( mov"$ to $ismiss t#" complaint in t#" )' fo !"in% !as"l"ss in fact an$ in law. F" also a%u"$ t#at t#" complainants violat"$ t#" ul" a%ainst foum s#oppin%. Oct. 2, 2003 B Ro$i%u"( mov"$ to $ismiss t#" O' complaint on t#" %oun$s of litis p"n$"ntia an$ foum s#oppin%, a%uin% t#at t#" )' #a$ ac8ui"$ 4uis$iction on )"p. /. Complainants, t#ou%# couns"l, mov"$ to wit#$aw t#" )' complaint to pioiti(" t#" O' complaint. Ro$i%u"( insist"$ t#at t#" )' complaint !" $ismiss"$ on t#" %oun$ of foum s#oppin% o Complainants a$mitt"$ to foum s#oppin% *LOL * LOL++ an$ claim"$ t#at t#"y w"" not assist"$ !y o couns"l w#"n t#"y fil"$ t#" complaint. ov. , 2003 B Eulo $ismiss"$ t#" )' complaint. Jan. 2;, 200 B O' o$""$ !ot# pati"s to fil" position pap"s. Ro$i%u"( fil"$ R, citin% p"n$"ncy of #is T. R $"ni"$. T is a po#i!it"$ pl"a$in% un$" AO 19, Rul" III, )"c.*%+. O': Magfile ka ng o position paper. Ro$i%u"(: Sige fa-file ako. )' ako. )' still #a$ 4uis$iction ov" #is p"son !"caus" #" #as not "c"iv"$ o any "solution o $"cision in$icatin% t#" $ismissal $ismissal of t#" )' cas". cas".
Complainants: T#"" was no mo" complaint in t#" )' !"caus" 5ic"6ayo Eulo %ant"$ t#"i motion to wit#$aw. Ro$i%u"(= "4oin$": ismissal not vali$ !"caus" only t#" 5ic"6ayo si%n"$ it. o Sep. 21, 2004 – OMBUDSMAN DECISION Fo!" Ro"#$%e& GUILTY o' "$()o!e(*+ !" opp#e(($o! o Ro$i%u"( $ismiss"$ fom s"vic", w& fof"itu" of all !"n"fits an$ civil s"vic" "li%i!ilit"s, an$ o $is8ualification fom pu!lic offic". Ro$i%u"( fil"$ R. o Jan 12, 200 B O' $i"ct"$ t#" ayo of 'inal!a%an to $ismiss Ro$i%u"(. Ro$i%u"( fil"$ a p"tition fo "vi"w wit# t#" CA. M+ -, 200 – CA DECISION OMB "e/$($o! (e* ($"e 'o# / o' #$("$/*$o! o i"ct"$ )' to continu" #"ain% t#" cas", as it ac8ui"$ pimay 4uis$iction ov" Ro$i%u"(, to t#" o ">clusion of t#" O'. 'A)I): RoC -, )"c. . )' was t#" fist to s"v" notic" on Ro$i%u"(. o O' fil"$ t#" p"s"nt p"tition o OMB: Juis$iction ov" t#" p"son is ac8ui"$ onc" a !o$y v"st"$ wit# 4uis$iction ta?"s co%ni(anc" of t#" complaint. O' was fist to ta?" co%ni(anc" of t#" complaint !"caus" t#" )' complaint was fil"$ lat". )ummons o notic"s $o not v"st 4uis$iction ov" t#" p"son in an a$ministativ" cas". Consist"nt wit# t#" ul" on concu"nt 4uis$iction, O' ">"cis" of 4uis$iction must !" to t#" ">clusion of t#" )'. Ro"#$%e&: G#"n a comp"t"nt !o$y #as ac8ui"$ 4uis$iction ov" a complaint an$ ov" t#" p"son of t#" "spon$"nt, ot#" !o$i"s a" ">clu$"$ fom ">"cisin% 4uis$iction ov" t#" sam" complaint. LGC IRR, rt. !"# pro$ides that an electi$e official ma% &e remo$ed &% the proper co'rt or &% disciplining a'thorit% whiche$er ac('ires )'risdiction first to the e*cl'sion of the other. )' ac8ui"$ 4uis$iction fist. Juis$iction in a$ministativ" cas"s is ac8ui"$ !y s"vic" of summons o ot#" compulsoy poc"ss"s. Complainants committ"$ foum s#oppin% w#"n t#"y fil"$ two i$"ntical complaints in two $isciplinin% aut#oiti"s ">"cisin% concu"nt 4uis$iction. o
•
• • •
•
•
ISSUES 3HELD 1+ G& t#" complainants violat"$ t#" ul" a%ainst foum s#oppin% w#"n t#"y fil"$ in t#" Om!u$sman an$ t#" san%%unian% !ayan i$"ntical complaints a%ainst Ro$i%u"( 3NO 2+ G#o ac8ui"$ 4uis$iction fist 6 t#" san%%unian% !ayan o t#" Om!u$smanH 3O56"(5! RATIO 1+ +ORM SOI/G /O0 LIC1L2 I/ 3MI/IS0R0I42 CS2S 0he facts in this case are analogo's to those in 7a>ina, ). v. Om!u$sman, which likewise in$ol$ed identical administrati$e complaints filed in &oth the Om&'dsman and the sangg'niang panl'ngsod against a p'nong &aranga% for gra$e miscond'ct. The Court held therein that the rule against forum shopping applied only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to administrative cases. 0h's, e$en if complainants filed in the Om&'dsman and the sangg'niang &a%an identical complaints against Ro$i%u"(, the% did not $iolate the r'le against for'm shopping &eca'se their complaint was in the nat're of an administrati$e case. 2+ OM13SM/ S CO/CRR2/0 JRIS3IC0IO/ 5I0 S1 10 COMLI/0 5S +IRS0 +IL23 5I0 OM13SM/ Constitution, At. KI, )"c. 13*1+: T#" Om!u$sman s#all #av" t#" followin% pow"s, functions, an$ $uti"s: *1+ I!7e(*$%*e o! $*( o8!, o# o! /o5p$!* 6+ !+ pe#(o!, any act o omission of any pu!lic official, "mploy"", offic", o a%"ncy, w#"n suc# act o omission app"as to !" ill"%al, un4ust, impop", o in"ffici"nt. Om!u$sman Act, )"c. 1: T#" Om!u$sman s#all #av" t#" followin% pow"s, functions, an$ $uti"s: *1+ I!7e(*$%*e !" p#o(e/*e o! $*( o8! o# o! /o5p$!* 6+ !+ pe#(o!, any act o omission of any pu!lic offic" o "mploy"", offic" o a%"ncy, w#"n suc# act o omission app"as to !" ill"%al, un4ust, impop", o in"ffici"nt. It #as pimay 4uis$iction ov" cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" )an$i%an!ayan an$, in t#" ">"cis" of t#is pimay 4uis$iction, it may ta?" ov", at any sta%", fom any inv"sti%atoy a%"ncy of "cutoy. Pimay 4uis$iction of Om!u$sman appli"s only in cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" )an$i%an!ayan. In cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" "%ula couts, Om!u$sman=s 4uis$iction is concu"nt wit# ot#" inv"sti%ativ" a%"nci"s. •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
RA /9; limits cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" )an$i%an!ayan to pu!lic officials wit# positions salay %a$" 29 an$ #i%#". Punon% !aan%ay is salay %a$" 1, so no 4uis$iction. Lom t#" applica!l" laws, it is cl"a t#at t#" Om!u$sman #as concu"nt 4uis$iction wit# t#" san%%unian% !ayan ov" a$ministativ" cas"s a%ainst "l"ctiv" !aan%ay officials wit# salay %a$" !"low 29, suc# as Ro$i%u"(. In a$ministativ" cas"s involvin% concu"nt 4uis$iction of 2 o mo" $isciplinin% aut#oiti"s, t#" !o$y in w&c t#" complaint is fil"$ fist, an$ w#ic# opts to ta?" co%ni(anc" of t#" cas", ac8ui"s 4uis$iction to t#" ">clusion of ot#" ti!unals ">"cisin% concu"nt 4uis$iction. CAB: )inc" t#" complaint was fil"$ fist in t#" Om!u$sman, an$ it opt"$ to assum" 4uis$iction ov" t#" complaint, t#" Om!u$sman=s ">"cis" of 4uis$iction is to t#" ">clusion of t#" san%%unian% !ayan. Juis$iction is a matt" of law. Onc" ac8ui"$, it is not lost upon t#" instanc" of t#" pati"s !ut continu"s until t#" cas" is t"minat"$. CAB: G#"n complainants fil"$ t#"i cas" !"fo" t#" Om!u$sman, 4uis$iction was al"a$y v"st"$. Juis$iction coul$ no lon%" !" tansf""$ to t#" san%%unian% !ayan !y vitu" of a su!s"8u"nt complaint fil"$ !y t#" sam" complainants. @n$" 7
DIS9OSITION: P"tition %ant"$. Om!u$sman $"cision up#"l$.
