You are on page 1of 1

Title: Alejandro v Office of the Ombudsman

GR No. 173121
Date: April 3, 2013
Ponente: Brion, J.
Parties:
petitioner: Franklin Alejandro
respondent: Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, represented by Atty. Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas
Facts:
Alfredo Rap Alejandro owned MICO Car Wash. They have been illegally opening an MWSI fire hydrant and using it to wash cars.
The PNP-CIDG discovered this during an anti-water pilferage operation. Thus, the car-wash boys were arrested and their water
containers were confiscated. Herein petitioner, Franklin Alejandro, is actually the father of Alfredo Alejandro. He is also the Barangay
Chairman or Punong Barangay of Barangay 293, Binondo, Manila. The petitioner interfered with the PNP-CIDGs operation by
ordering several men to unload the confiscated containers. This intervention caused further commotion and created an opportunity
for the apprehended car-wash boys to escape. For this, the respondent Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence
Bureau, filed an administrative complaint against him.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the service.
The Deputy Ombudsman ruled that the petitioner cannot overextend his authority as Barangay Chairman and induce other people to
disrespect proper authorities. The Deputy Ombudsman also added that the petitioner had tolerated the illegal acts of MICOs carwash boys. A motion for reconsideration was filed. It was denied. The petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA dismissed the petition
for premature filing. (He should have filed to the Ombudsman first.) The motion for reconsideration was denied.
Thereafter, the petitioner argued that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to order his dismissal from the service since
under the Local Government Code of 1991, an elective local official may be removed from office only by the order of a proper court.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman answered that the petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies as he should have
filed his appeal to the Ombudsman first. And that according to RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Office of the
Ombudsman has disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials.
Issues:
1. WON the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over elective Officials and has the power to order their dismissal from
the service-YES
2. WON the petitioner is liable for grave misconduct-YES
Ratio:
The ponencia states that The two laws may be reconciled by understanding the primary jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction of
the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or
employee who is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as provided for in R.A. No. 6770. This jurisdiction extends only to
public officials occupying positions corresponding to salary grade (SG) 27 and higher. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez,
similar misconduct of those with a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the
regular courts or other investigative agencies. For administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more
disciplining authorities, the body where the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
A Barangay Chairman is under SG 14. Under the LGC, the sangunniang panlungsod or the sangguniang bayan has disciplinary
authority over any elective barangay official. Thus, the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case because the
complaint was initially filed there.
It was also found that the petitioner is liable for grave misconduct. The Court explained that pursuant to Section 389(b)(3) of RA
7160 While the petitioner has general change of the affairs in the barangay, the maintenance of peace and order is largely a police
matter, with police authority being predominant, especially when the police has begun to act on an enforcement matter. In the same
light, Section 24 of RA 6975 (the Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990) provides that police authority is
superior to the punong barangays authority in a situation where the maintenance of peace and order has metamorphosed into
crime prevention and arrest of criminal offenders. In this case, a criminal act was already actually taking place.
Also, the punong barangay by interfering with a legitimate police operation, effectively interfered with the hierarchy of authority.
Because of this, his misconduct is classified as grave. The penalty for this is dismissal from service,

WHEREFORE, petition DENIED.