FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO VS.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU

G.R. No. 173121
April 3, 2013
Brion
Doctrine:
In 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.
Facts:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, which was dismissed by the CA for prematurity of
appeal.
The Head of Manila Water Services, Inc. (MWSI) received a report that the Mico Car Wash
(MICO), owned by Alfredo Rap Alejandro has been illegally opening and MWSI fire hydrant
and using it to operate it car-wash business in Binondo.
PNP Investigation and Detection Group conducted an anti-water pilferage operation against
MICO.
During the anti-water pilferage operation, the MICOs car-wash boys were found to be
illegally getting water from the MWSI fire hydrant.
The PNP arrested the carwash boys and confiscated the containers used in getting water.
Alfredos father, who is also the Barangay Chairman, interfered with the PNP-CIDGs
operation by ordering several men to unload the confiscated containers.
The Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau filed with the Ofiice of
the Overall Deputy Ombudsman an administrative complaint against the petitioner for his
blatant refusal to recognize a joint legitimate police activity, and for his unwarranted
intervention.
Deputy Ombudsman found the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his
dismissal from the service
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Ombudsman.
Petitioner appealed to the CA via a petition for Review on Certiorari, which was dismissed by
CA.
Petitioner moved for Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied by CA. Hence, this
petition.
Petitioner argues that Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to order his dismissal because RA
7160 or Local Government Code of 1991, an elective local official may be removed from
office only by the order of a proper court.
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman through the Office of the OSG pointed out that petitioner
failed to exhaust administrative remedies since he did no appeal the decision of the
Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman Act 6770 has disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive
officials.

Issue:
1. Whether the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a request for
reconsideration from the office of the Deputy Ombudsman to the Ombudsman for the purpose of
Rule 43 Review.
2. Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over elective officials and has the
power to order their dismissal from the service.
3. Whether Petitioners act constitutes grave misconduct to warrant his dismissal.
Ruling:
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
1. There is no further need to exhaust administrative remedies from the decision of the Deputy of the
Ombudsman.
2. The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases which are within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts or administrative agencies.
3. The petitioner is liable for grave misconduct.
Ratio:
1. The petitioner has fully exhausted all administrative remedies when he filed his motion for
reconsideration on the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman.
2. The Office of the Ombudsman was created by the Constitution. It is tasked to exercise disciplinary
authority over all elective and appointive officials except for impeachable officers. While Section 21
of the Ombudsman Act and the Local Government Code both provide for the procedure to discipline
elective officials, the conflicts have been resolved by the Supreme Court. The two statutes are not
inconsistent. The two laws may be reconciled by understanding the primary jurisdiction and
concurrent jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to

investigate any act or omission of a public officer or employee who is under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayans jurisdiction extends only to public officials occupying positions
corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher. Any act or omission of a public officer or employee
occupying a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In 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.
Under the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Panglungsod or Sangguniang Bayan
has disciplinary authority over any elective barangay official.
The complaint against the petitioner was initially filed with the Office of the Ombudsman,
the Ombudsmans exercise of jurisdiction is to exclusion of the Sangguniang Bayan whose exercise
of jurisdiction is concurrent. The Ombudsman has the power to impose administrative sanctions.
The Ombudsman has the power to directly impose administrative sanctions.
3. The peace and order is a function of both the police and the Barangay Chairman, but the Crime
prevention is a police matter. The anti-water pilferage operation against the carwash boys was
affecting the peace and order of the community and the chairman was duty-bound to investigate
and try to maintain public order. Instead of assisting the PNP, the chairman actually ordered several
bystanders to defy the PNPs whole operation. The Barangay Chairman is tasked to enforce all laws
and ordinances which are applicable within the barangay, in the same manner that the police is
bound to maintain peace and order within the community. In this case, the police authority is
superior to the Chairman in a situation where the maintenance of peace and order has
metamorphosed into crime prevention and the arrest of the criminals. The petitioner is bound to
respect the PNPs authority. Misconduct is considered grave if accompanied by corruption, a clear
intent to violate the law or a flagrant disregard of established rules, which must all be supported by
substantial evidence. Petitioner violated the law by directly interfering with a legitimate police
activity where his own son appeared to be involve.