You are on page 1of 6

Beja. Sr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

97149 31 March before the Court for a petition for certiorari with
1992 preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
FACTS: order.
Fidencio Beja Sr. an employee of Philippine ports
authority, hired as Arrastre supervisor in 1975. and later ISSUE:
on appointed as terminal supervisor in 1988. On Wether or not the Administrative Action Board of DOTC
October 21, 1988, the General Manager, Rogelio A. has jurisdiction over administrative cases involving
Dayan filed administrative case against Beja Sr. and personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager
Villaluz for grave dishonesty. Grave misconduct willful of the Philippine Ports Authority, an attached agency of
violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and DOTC.
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Consequently they were preventively suspended for the RULING:
charges. After preliminary investigation conducted by The PPA General Manager is the disciplining authority
the district attorney for region X, administrative case who may, by himself and without the approval of the
no. 11-04-88 was considered closed for lack of PPA Board of Directors, subject a respondent in an
merit. On December 13, 1988 another administrative administrative case to preventive suspension. His
case was filed against Beja by the PPA manager also for disciplining powers are sanctioned not only by Sec.8 of
dishonesty grave misconduct violation of office rules PD no. 857 but also by Sec. 37 of PD no. 807 granting
and regulations, conduct prejudicial to the best interest the heads of agencies the “Jurisdiction to investigate
of the service and for being notoriously undesirable. and decide matters involving disciplinary actions against
Beja was also placed under preventive suspension officers and employees in the PPA. With respect to the
pursuant to sec. 412 of PD No. 807. The case was issue, the Court qualifiedly rules in favor of the
redocketed as administrative case n o. PPA-AAB-1-049- petitioner. The PPA was created through PD no. 505
89 and thereafter, the PPA indorsed it to the AAB for dated July 1974. Under the Law, the corporate powers
appropriate action. The AAB proceeded to hear the of the PPA were vested in a governing Board of
case and gave Beja an opportunity to present evidence. Directors known as the Philippine Ports Authority
However, on February 20, 1989, Beja filed petition for Council. Sec. 5(i) of the same decree gave the council
certiorari with preliminary injunction before the the power “to appoint, discipline and remove, and
Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental. Two days later, determine the composition of the technical staff of the
he filed with the ABB a manifestation and motion to authority and other personnel”. On December 23, 1975,
suspend the hearing of administrative case no. PPA- PD no. 505 was substituted by PD no. 857 sec. 4(a)
AAB-1-049-89 on account of the pendency of the thereof created the Philippine Ports Authority which
certiorari proceeding before the court. AAB denied the would be attached to the then Department of Public
motion and continued with the hearing of the Works, Transportation and Communication.
administrative case. Thereafter, Beja moved for the When Executive order no. 125 dated January 30, 1987
dismissal of the certiorari case and proceeded to file reorganizing the Ministry of Transportation and
Communication was issued, the PPA retained its validates the jurisdiction of the DOTC and/or the AAB to
attached status. Administrative Code of 1987 classiffied act on administrative case no. PPA –AAB-1-049-89. The
PPA as an attached agency to the DOTC. Book IV of the AAB decision in said cased is hereby declared NULL and
Administrative Code of 1987, the other two being VOID and the case is REMANDED to the PPA whose
supervision and control and administrative supervision, General Manager shall conduct with dispatch its
“Attachment” is defined as the “lateral relationship reinvestigation.
between the department or its equivalent and the
attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
and program coordination”. An attached agency has a vs. CA G.R. No. 85279 July 28, 1989
larger measure of independence from the Department Facts:
to which it is attached than one which is under On June 11, 1987, the SSS filed with the Regional Trial
departmental supervision and control or administrative Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages with a
supervision. This is borne out by the “lateral prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against
relationship” between the Department and the petitioners, alleging that on June 9, 1987, the officers
attached agency. The attachment is merely for policy and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike and
and program coordination.” With respect to baricaded the entrances to the SSS Building, preventing
administrative matters, the independence of an non-striking employees from reporting for work and SSS
attached agency from the department control and members from transacting business with the SSS; that
supervision is furthermore reinforced by the fact that the strike was reported to the Public Sector Labor -
even an agency under a Department’s administrative Management Council, which ordered the strikers to
supervision is free from Departmental interference with return to work; that the strikers refused to return to
respect to appointments and other personnel actions “ work; and that the SSS suffered damages as a result of
in accordance with the decentralization of personnel the strike. The complaint prayed that a writ of
functions” under the administrative Code of 1987. The preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the strike and
Law impliedly grants the general Manager with the that the strikers be ordered to return to work; that the
approval of the PPA board of Directors the power to defendants (petitioners herein) be ordered to pay
investigate its personnel below the rank of Assistant damages; and that the strike be declared illegal.
Manager who may be charged with an administrative It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS
offense. During such investigation, the PPA General failed to act on the union's demands, which included:
Manager, may subject the employee concerned to implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA
preventive suspension. The investigation should be collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on check-off of
conducted in accordance with the procedure set out in union dues; payment of accrued overtime pay, night
Sec. 38 of PD no. 807. The Decision of the Court of differential pay and holiday pay; conversion of
Appeal is AFFIRMED as so far as it upholds the power of temporary or contractual employees with six (6) months
the PPA General Manager to to subject petitioner to or more of service into regular and permanent
preventive suspension and REVERSED insofar as it employees and their entitlement to the same salaries,
allowances and benefits given to other regular created under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are part of
employees of the SSS; and payment of the children's the civil service [NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 69870 &
allowance of P30.00, and after the SSS deducted certain 70295, November 24,1988] and are covered by the Civil
amounts from the salaries of the employees and Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes.
allegedly committed acts of discrimination and unfair This being the case, the strike staged by the employees
labor practices. of the SSS was illegal.

Issue: Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner vs Ramon Galicia,


Whether or not employees of the Social Security System Respondent. G.R. No. 167711, October 10, 2008
(SSS) have the right to strike. Facts:
Respondent Galicia was a former public school teacher.
Held: Based on the academic records which were part of his
The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice 201 file, he graduated from FEU with a degree in civil
and Human Rights, provides that the State "shall engineering but failed to pass the board examinations
guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, and has earned 18 units in education, evidenced by a
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful copy of a Transcript of Records from the Caloocan City
concerted activities, including the right to strike in Polytechnic College. Likewise, he passed the Teachers
accordance with law" [Art. XIII, Sec. 31]. Professional Board Examination (TPBE) given on
Resort to the intent of the framers of the organic law November 22, 1987.
becomes helpful in understanding the meaning of these On December 2001, Reynaldo V. Yamsuan, then
provisions. A reading of the proceedings of the Principal of the MBASHS, reviewed the 201 files of his
Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 teaching staff and noticed that Galicia’s TOR was not an
Constitution would show that in recognizing the right of original copy and required Galicia and other teachers
government employees to organize, the commissioners with similar records, to secure authenticated copies of
intended to limit the right to the formation of unions or their TOR. All of the teachers complied except Galicia.
associations only, without including the right to strike. Yamsuan verified with the school the authenticity of
Galicia’s TOR and was informed that the said school had
Considering that under the 1987 Constitution "the civil no record of the said TOR, and more importantly, that
service embraces all branches, subdivisions, they had no records that Galicia took up 18 units of
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, education in SY 1985-1986.
including government-owned or controlled corporations Acting on his findings, Yamsuan lodged an affidavit-
with original charters" [Art. IX(B), Sec. .2(l) see also Sec. complaint for falsification, dishonesty, and grave
1 of E.O. No. 180 where the employees in the civil misconduct against Galicia before the Ombudsman.
service are denominated as "government employees"] In his Counter-Affidavit, Galicia stated that the
and that the SSS is one such government-controlled complaint was malicious and motivated by revenge.
corporation with an original charter, having been Galicia stressed that the TOR he submitted was
authentic, as shown by the signature of then College the Ombudsman Act which enumerates the instances
Registrar Rolando Labrador. He argued that the when the Ombudsman may not conduct an
certification from the present college registrar that administrative investigation:
CCPC had no record of his TOR did not prove that the 1) Complainant has an adequate remedy in another
document was spurious. Rather, it only proved that judicial or quasi-judicial body;
CCPC’s filing system of scholastic records was 2) The complaint pertains to a matter outside the
disorganized. Moreover, Galicia argued that the TPBE jurisdiction of the Ombudsman;
was a highly specialized type of exam that could only be 3) The complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made
passed if the examinee acquired academic units in in bad faith;
education. If he did not take up the said 18 units in 4) Complainant has no sufficient personal interest in
education, then he could not have possibly passed the the subject matter of the grievance; or
TPBE. 5) The complaint was filed after one year from the
During the preliminary conference, Galicia presented occurrence of the act or omission complained of.
for comparison the original of the TOR and Certificate of According to Galicia, all of the above conditions were
Grades (COG), as well as the original copies of the other present in the case filed against him. An adequate
documents in his 201 file. A subpoena duces tecum was remedy existed in the Office of the Secretary of
subsequently served upon Prof. Marilyn T. De Jesus, Education; the matter was outside the jurisdiction of
Registrar of CCPC, for the purpose of certifying the the Ombudsman; the complaint was made in bad faith;
authenticity of Galicia’s school records. De Jesus and complainant Yamsuan had no sufficient personal
declined to certify the documents because no copies interest in the matter.
were on file in the school. Lastly, Galicia claimed that the Ombudsman lacked
Subsequently, the Ombudsman found Galicia guilty of jurisdiction since the complaint was filed only in 2002,
Dishonesty for which the penalty of Dismissal From the thirteen (13) years from the time he allegedly
Service, Forfeiture of Leave Credits and Retirement committed the dishonest act in 1989. According to him,
Benefits and Temporary Disqualification for Re- this violated Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 6770, which
employment in the Government Service for a period of mandated that all complaints must be filed within one
One (1) Year was imposed. year from the occurrence of the act charged.
Galicia filed a motion for reconsideration and raised the The Ombudsman denied Galicia’s motion for
issue of jurisdiction for the first time. He argued that it reconsideration. It declared that the Ombudsman’s
is not the Ombudsman, but the Department of disciplining authority extended the School
Education, through the School Superintendent, which Superintendent over administrative cases against public
has jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers. Galicia elevated the case to the CA.
school teachers, as mandated by RA 4670, (Magna Carta On January 20, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the
for Public School Teachers). decision of the Ombudsman holding that jurisdiction
Galicia further challenged the jurisdiction of the over public school teachers belonged to the School
Ombudsman by invoking Section 20 of R.A. No. 6770 or Superintendent as mandated by R.A. No. 4670.
Issue: require production of evidence and place respondents
WON the CA erred in nullifying the decision of the under preventive suspension. This includes the power
Office of the Ombudsman on alleged jurisdictional to impose the penalty of removal, suspension,
infirmity? demotion, fine, or censure of a public officer or
employee.
Ruling: A review of the Ombudsman Act and the Magna Carta
Section 12 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states for Public School Teachers reveals an apparent
that the “Ombudsman and his Deputies shall act overlapping of jurisdiction over administrative cases
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public school teachers.
against public officials or employees of the Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers
Government, or any subdivision, agency or grants jurisdiction over erring public school teachers to
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned an Investigating Committee headed by the Division
or controlled corporations, xxx”. Under Section 13, School Superintendent which reads: “SEC. 9.
Article XI, the Ombudsman is empowered to conduct Administrative Charges. Administrative charges against
investigations on its own or upon complaint by any a teacher shall be heard initially by a committee
person when such act appears to be illegal, unjust, composed of the corresponding School Superintendent
improper, or inefficient. He is also given broad powers of the Division or a duly authorized representative x x
to take the appropriate disciplinary actions against x”.
erring public officials and employees. Galicia argues that jurisdiction exclusively belongs to
And Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act grants the the investigating committee on the main thesis that the
ombudsman the power to “Investigate and prosecute Magna Carta for Public School Teachers is a special law
on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or which should take precedence over the Ombudsman
omission of any public officer or employee, office or Act, a general law. The Ombudsman maintains that
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, jurisdiction among the two bodies is concurrent since
unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary there is no express repeal in either of the laws that
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan would oust the Ombudsman from its authority over
and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may public school teachers.
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency By virtue of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers,
of Government, the investigation of such cases.” While original jurisdiction belongs to the school
Section 19 of the Act enumerates the types of acts superintendent. The intention of the law, which is to
covered by the authority granted to the Ombudsman. In impose a separate standard and procedural
the exercise of its duties, the Ombudsman is given full requirement for administrative cases involving public
administrative disciplinary authority. His power is not school teachers, must be given consideration. Hence,
limited merely to receiving, processing complaints, or the Ombudsman must yield to this committee of the
recommending penalties. He is to conduct Division School Superintendent. Even in the earlier case
investigations, hold hearings, summon witnesses and of Alcala v. Villar, the Court held that:
Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, respondent is estopped from attacking the proceedings
provides that the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary before the CSC.
authority over all elective and appointive officials of the In the present case, records show that Galicia was given
Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and the right to due process in the investigation of the
agencies, including members of the Cabinet, local charges against him. He participated in the proceedings
government, government-owned or controlled by making known his defenses in the pleadings that he
corporations and their subsidiaries except over officials submitted. It was only when a decision adverse to him
who may be removed by impeachment or over was rendered did he question the jurisdiction of the
Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. However, in Ombudsman.
Fabella v. Court of Appeals, it was held that R.A. No. Under the principles of estoppel and laches, We rule
4670, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, that it is now too late for Galicia to assail the
specifically covers and governs administrative administrative investigation conducted and the decision
proceedings involving public school teachers. x x x rendered against him.
(Emphasis supplied)
Be that as it may, We hold here that the Ombudsman’s
exercise of jurisdiction was proper.
The CA was in error in relying on Alcala, without taking
into consideration the cases full import. In Alcala, the
Court, while recognizing the jurisdiction of the School
Superintendent, nonetheless upheld the decision of the
Ombudsman on the rationale that the parties were
afforded their right to due process during the
investigation proceedings. Respondent in the Alcala
case was given sufficient opportunity to be heard and
submit his defenses to the charges made against him.
Thus, he is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction
of the Ombudsman after an adverse decision was
promulgated.
In the same manner, the recent Estandarte case
recognized similar circumstances cited in Emin v. De
Leon. In De Leon, it was found that the parties were
afforded their right to due process when both fully
participated in the proceedings before the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). The Court ruled that while
jurisdiction lies with the School Superintendent,