Office of the Ombudsman v.

Rodriguez | ema
July 23, 2010
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner,  vs.
ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, respondent. 
CARPIO, J.:

SUMMARY: Two complaints fo a!us" of aut#oity, $is#on"sty, miscon$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 foum
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 poc""$in%, Ro$i%u"( fil"$ T, claimin% t#at t#"
)' still #a$ 4uis$iction !"caus" #" n"v" "c"iv"$ a $"cision o "solution $ismissin% t#at complaint. Complainants a
%u"$ t#at t#" cas" was $ismiss"$ aft" t#" 5ic"6ayo %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"( fom #is position, $is8ualifyin% #im fom pu!lic offic", an$ fof"itin% #is !"n"fits an$ C)C "li%i!ility. On app"al,
CA "v"s"$, #ol$in% t#at )' still #a$ 4uis$iction !"caus" it was t#" fist to s"v" notic" on Ro$i%u"(. On app"al !y
t#" Om!u$sman, )C "v"s"$ CA an$ affim"$ t#" Om!u$sman $"cision, ulin% t#at t#" Om!u$sman #a$ concu"nt
4uis$iction wit# t#" )' un$" RA /9; an$ t#" 7<C, !"caus" Ro$i%u"( is a punon% !aan%ay *)< 1+. Contay to
CA conclusion an$ Ro$i%u"(= cont"ntion t#at 4uis$iction is ac8ui"$ !y s"vic" of summons t#us )' ac8ui"$
4uis$iction fist, in cas"s of 2 a%"nci"s ">"cisin% concu"nt 4uis$iction, t#" !o$y in w&c t#" complaint is fil"$ fist,
an$ w#ic# opts to ta?" co%ni(anc" of t#" cas", ac8ui"s 4uis$iction to t#" ">clusion of ot#" ti!unals ">"cisin%
concu"nt 4uis$iction, an$ t#" 4uis$iction continu"s until t#" cas" is t"minat"$. CAB: Complaint wit# t#" Om!
u$sman was fil"$ fist, so w#"n it too? of co%ni(anc" of opt"$ to assum" 4uis$iction ov" t#" cas", 4uis$iction #a$
al"a$y v"st"$, to t#" ">clusion of t#" )'. Om!u$sman $"cision was t#us "n$""$ wit# 4uis$iction an$ s#oul$
!" up#"l$.

DOCTRINE: @n$" 7<C -0, t#" san%%unian% !ayan #as no pow" to "mov" an "l"ctiv" !aan%ay official. Apat
fom t#" Om!u$sman, only a pop" cout may $o so. @nli?" t#" san%%unian% !ayan, t#" pow"s of t#" Om!u$sman
a" not m""ly "comm"n$atoy. T#" Om!u$sman is clot#"$ wit# aut#oity to $i"ctly "mov" an "in% pu!lic official
ot#" t#an m"m!"s of Con%"ss an$ t#" Ju$iciay w#o may !" "mov"$ only !y imp"ac#m"nt. Om!u$sman #as
concu"nt 4uis$iction wit# t#" san%%unian% !ayan ov" a$ministativ" cas"s a%ainst "l"ctiv" !aan%ay officials wit#
salay %a$" !"low 29, e.g., punon% !aan%ay. T#" ul" a%ainst foum s#oppin% appli"s only to 4u$icial cas"s o
poc""$in%s, not to a$ministativ" cas"s.

NATURE: P"tition fo "vi"w un$" ROC . A$ministativ" complaint fil"$ wit# t#" Om!u$sman.

FACTS
•  Au%. 2-, 2003 B Om!u$sman fo 5isayas *O'+ "c"iv"$ a complaint a%ainst P&' Rolson RORI<@D of
)to. Rosaio, 'inal!a%an, "%os Occi$"ntal. T#" complaint all"%"$ a!us" of aut#oity, $is#on"sty,
opp"ssion, miscon$uct in offic", an$ n"%l"ct of $uty.
• )"p. 1, 2003 B )an%%unian% 'ayan *)'+ of 'inal!a%an, t#ou%# 5ic"6ayo Jos" <. E@7O, "c"iv"$ a
simila complaint a%ainst Ro$i%u"(. no statement as to who the complainants were
• )"p. /, 2003 B Eulo issu"$ a notic" o$"in% Ro$i%u"( to fil" an answ" wit#in 1 $ays fom "c"ipt of suc#
notic".
• )"p, 10, 2003 B O' "8ui"$ 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 foum s#oppin%.
• Oct. 2, 2003 B Ro$i%u"( mov"$ to $ismiss t#" O' complaint on t#" %oun$s of litis p"n$"ntia an$ foum
s#oppin%, a%uin% t#at t#" )' #a$ ac8ui"$ 4uis$iction on )"p. /.
• Complainants, t#ou%# couns"l, mov"$ to wit#$aw t#" )' complaint to pioiti(" t#" O' complaint.
o Ro$i%u"( insist"$ t#at t#" )' complaint !" $ismiss"$ on t#" %oun$ of foum s#oppin%
o Complainants a$mitt"$ to foum s#oppin% *LOL+ an$ claim"$ t#at t#"y w"" not assist"$ !y
couns"l w#"n t#"y fil"$ t#" complaint.
• ov. , 2003 B Eulo $ismiss"$ t#" )' complaint.
• Jan. 2;, 200 B O' o$""$ !ot# pati"s to fil" position pap"s. Ro$i%u"( fil"$ R, citin% p"n$"ncy of #is
T.
o R $"ni"$. T is a po#i!it"$ pl"a$in% un$" AO 19, Rul" III, )"c.*%+. O': Magfile ka ng
 position paper.
o Ro$i%u"(: Sige fa-file ako. )' still #a$ 4uis$iction ov" #is p"son !"caus" #" #as not "c"iv"$
any "solution o $"cision in$icatin% t#" $ismissal of t#" )' cas".
 o Complainants: T#"" was no mo" complaint in t#" )' !"caus" 5ic"6ayo Eulo %ant"$ t#"i
motion to wit#$aw.
o Ro$i%u"(= "4oin$": ismissal not vali$ !"caus" only t#" 5ic"6ayo si%n"$ it.
• Sep. 21, 2004 – OMBUDSMAN DECISION
o Fo!" Ro"#$%e& GUILTY o' "$()o!e(*+ !" opp#e(($o!
o Ro$i%u"( $ismiss"$ fom s"vic", w& fof"itu" of all !"n"fits an$ civil s"vic" "li%i!ilit"s, an$
$is8ualification fom pu!lic offic".
o Ro$i%u"( fil"$ R.
• 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
o OMB "e/$($o! (e* ($"e 'o# / o' #$("$/*$o!
o i"ct"$ )' to continu" #"ain% t#" cas", as it ac8ui"$ pimay 4uis$iction ov" Ro$i%u"(, to t#"
">clusion of t#" O'.
o 'A)I): RoC -, )"c. . )' was t#" fist to s"v" notic" on Ro$i%u"(.
o O' fil"$ t#" p"s"nt p"tition
• OMB: Juis$iction ov" t#" p"son is ac8ui"$ onc" a !o$y v"st"$ wit# 4uis$iction ta?"s co%ni(anc" of t#"
complaint. O' was fist to ta?" co%ni(anc" of t#" complaint !"caus" t#" )' complaint was fil"$ lat".
)ummons o notic"s $o not v"st 4uis$iction ov" t#" p"son in an a$ministativ" cas". Consist"nt wit# t#"
ul" on concu"nt 4uis$iction, O' ">"cis" of 4uis$iction must !" to t#" ">clusion of t#" )'.
• Ro"#$%e&: G#"n a comp"t"nt !o$y #as ac8ui"$ 4uis$iction ov" a complaint an$ ov" t#" p"son of t#"
"spon$"nt, ot#" !o$i"s a" ">clu$"$ fom ">"cisin% 4uis$iction ov" t#" sam" complaint. LGC IRR, rt.
!"# pro$ides that an electi$e official ma% &e remo$ed &% the proper co'rt or &% disciplining a'thorit%
whiche$er ac('ires )'risdiction first to the e*cl'sion of the other. )' ac8ui"$ 4uis$iction fist. Juis$iction in
a$ministativ" cas"s is ac8ui"$ !y s"vic" of summons o ot#" compulsoy poc"ss"s. Complainants
committ"$ foum s#oppin% w#"n t#"y fil"$ two i$"ntical complaints in two $isciplinin% aut#oiti"s ">"cisin%
concu"nt 4uis$iction.

ISSUES 3HELD
1+ G& t#" complainants violat"$ t#" ul" a%ainst foum 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"$ 4uis$iction fist 6 t#" san%%unian% !ayan o t#" Om!u$smanH 3O56"(5!

RATIO
1+ +ORM SOI/G /O0 LIC1L2 I/ 3MI/IS0R0I42 CS2S
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+ OM13SM/ S CO/CRR2/0 JRIS3IC0IO/ 5I0 S1 10 COMLI/0 5S +IRS0 +IL23 5I0 OM13SM/ 
• Constitution, At. 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"as to !" ill"%al, un4ust, impop", 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"as to !" ill"%al, un4ust, impop", o
in"ffici"nt. It #as pimay 4uis$iction ov" cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" )an$i%an!ayan an$, in t#" ">"cis" of
t#is pimay 4uis$iction, it may ta?" ov", at any sta%", fom any inv"sti%atoy a%"ncy of <ov"nm"nt, t#"
inv"sti%ations of suc# cas"s.
• 7<C -1*c+: Lom an$ Lilin% of A$ministativ" Complaints. 6 A v"ifi"$ complaint a%ainst any "in% "l"ctiv"
official s#all !" p"pa"$ as follows: *c+ A complaint a%ainst any "l"ctiv" !aan%ay official () 6e '$e"
6e'o#e *)e (!%%!$!% p!!%(o" o# (!%%!$!% 6+! /o!/e#!e" w#os" $"cision s#all !" final an$
">"cutoy.
• Pimay 4uis$iction of Om!u$sman appli"s only in cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" )an$i%an!ayan.
• In cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" "%ula couts, Om!u$sman=s 4uis$iction is concu"nt wit# ot#" inv"sti%ativ"
a%"nci"s.
 • RA /9; limits cas"s co%ni(a!l" !y t#" )an$i%an!ayan to pu!lic officials wit# positions salay %a$" 29 an$
#i%#". Punon% !aan%ay is salay %a$" 1, so no 4uis$iction.
• Lom t#" applica!l" laws, it is cl"a t#at t#" Om!u$sman #as concu"nt 4uis$iction wit# t#" san%%unian%
!ayan ov" a$ministativ" cas"s a%ainst "l"ctiv" !aan%ay officials wit# salay %a$" !"low 29, suc# as Ro$i
%u"(.
• In a$ministativ" cas"s involvin% concu"nt 4uis$iction of 2 o mo" $isciplinin% aut#oiti"s, t#" !o$y in w&c
t#" complaint is fil"$ fist, an$ w#ic# opts to ta?" co%ni(anc" of t#" cas", ac8ui"s 4uis$iction to t#"
">clusion of ot#" ti!unals ">"cisin% concu"nt 4uis$iction.
• CAB: )inc" t#" complaint was fil"$ fist in t#" Om!u$sman, an$ it opt"$ to assum" 4uis$iction ov"
t#" complaint, t#" Om!u$sman=s ">"cis" of 4uis$iction is to t#" ">clusion of t#" san%%unian% !ayan.
• Juis$iction is a matt" of law. Onc" ac8ui"$, it is not lost upon t#" instanc" of t#" pati"s !ut continu"s
until t#" cas" is t"minat"$. CAB: G#"n complainants fil"$ t#"i cas" !"fo" t#" Om!u$sman, 4uis$iction
was al"a$y v"st"$. Juis$iction coul$ no lon%" !" tansf""$ to t#" san%%unian% !ayan !y vitu" of a su!
s"8u"nt complaint fil"$ !y t#" sam" complainants.
• @n$" 7<C -0, t#" san%%unian% !ayan #as no pow" to "mov" an "l"ctiv" !aan%ay official. Apat fom t#"
Om!u$sman, only a pop" cout may $o so. @nli?" t#" san%%unian% !ayan, t#" pow"s of t#" Om!u$sman
a" not m""ly "comm"n$atoy. T#" Om!u$sman is clot#"$ wit# aut#oity to $i"ctly "mov" an "in% pu!lic
official ot#" t#an m"m!"s of Con%"ss an$ t#" Ju$iciay w#o may !" "mov"$ only !y imp"ac#m"nt.

DIS9OSITION: P"tition %ant"$. Om!u$sman $"cision up#"l$.