Scribd
Upload
815 views

OMB Vs Estandarte

1) A complaint was filed against a school principal with allegations of improprieties. The complaint was initially dismissed by the Department of Education for lack of proper filing. 2) The Department of Education later received a properly filed complaint and began an investigation through a Special Investigating Committee. 3) However, the Ombudsman then took over jurisdiction of the case. The school principal challenged this, arguing the Department of Education had primary jurisdiction. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that while both the Ombudsman and Department of Education had concurrent jurisdiction, the Department of Education was in a better position to handle the case since the principal was a public school teacher covered under their authority and

Uploaded by

Angel Eilise
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
815 views

OMB Vs Estandarte

1) A complaint was filed against a school principal with allegations of improprieties. The complaint was initially dismissed by the Department of Education for lack of proper filing. 2) The Department of Education later received a properly filed complaint and began an investigation through a Special Investigating Committee. 3) However, the Ombudsman then took over jurisdiction of the case. The school principal challenged this, arguing the Department of Education had primary jurisdiction. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that while both the Ombudsman and Department of Education had concurrent jurisdiction, the Department of Education was in a better position to handle the case since the principal was a public school teacher covered under their authority and

Uploaded by

Angel Eilise
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Page 1 of 2 – ADMIN Case Digest

74. Office of the Ombudsman vs Heidi M. manifested its willingness to reassume jurisdiction of
Estandarte the same."

GR number 168670 April 13, 2007 Estandarte filed an Urgent Motion to Remand 27 the
case to the DECS-Region VI on the ground that
FACTS: People’s Graftwatch, through its Chairman, jurisdiction is now exclusively vested on the latter.
Dr. Patricio Y. Tan, referred to the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) denied the motion
Ombudsman (Visayas), for immediate investigation, a ratiocinating that it was not barred from assuming
complaint of the Faculty Club and Department Heads jurisdiction over the complaint after the DECS-Region
of the Ramon Torres National High School VI had relinquished its jurisdiction over the same.
(hereinafter the Faculty Club) against Heidi
Estandarte, the school principal. The complaint Ombudsman (Visayas) found Estandarte guilty of
consisted of 33 allegations of improprieties ranging grave misconduct and is meted the penalty of
from illegal handling of school funds, irregular Dismissal from Service, with perpetual disqualification
financial transactions, perjury, and abuse of to hold public office and forfeiture of all benefits and
authority. However, the complaint was not subscribed cancellation of Civil Service eligibilities.
and sworn to by the complainant, and not supported
by the sworn statements of witnesses. The complaint Estandarte filed a petition for review with prayer for
also lacked a statement of non-forum shopping as the issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of
required. The Ombudsman (Visayas) treated the preliminary injunction with the CA. She alleged that
matter as a request for assistance, and docketed the the Ombudsman (Visayas) violated her right to due
complaint. process when her request for a formal investigation
was denied and that the DECS-Region VI has
The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the jurisdiction over the case.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports
Regional Office VI (DECS-Region VI) and the CA ordered issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary
Commission on Audit (COA) for appropriate action. injunction. It also remanded the case to the Special
DECS-Region VI found that the complaint did not Investigating Committee of the DECS-Region VI.
comply with the formalities under Executive Order No.
ISSUE: Whether or not DECS has exclusive
292. Thus, it dismissed the complaint, without
jurisdiction over the case.
prejudice to the filing of an appropriate one.
RULING: NO.
The Faculty Club filed a formal complaint – sworn and
subscribed to by the complainants – with DECS- The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over disciplinary
Region VI but was also dismissed for lack of cases against government employees, which includes
verification and certification against forum shopping. public school teachers, is vested by no less than
Later on, DECS-Region VI received the requisite Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution which states
verification and certification. —

DECS-Region VI required Estandarte to answer the Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
charges in writing. Thereafter, a Special Investigating protectors of the people, shall act promptly on
Committee was created to hear the case. complaints filed in any form or manner against public
officials or employees of the Government, or any
The Committee issued a subpoena duces tecum
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
addressed to the State Auditor assigned to the case,
including government-owned or controlled
requiring him to produce the original copies of certain
corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify
documents. The State Auditor, however, replied that
the complainants of the action taken and the result
he could not comply with the subpoena because the
thereof.
documents are being used by the Ombudsman
(Visayas) in the criminal and administrative cases Ombudsman (Visayas) acted without or in excess of
pending before it which concerned the same parties. jurisdiction when it took over the case after it issued a
The Committee issued an endorsement memorandum considering the case closed and
recommending the dismissal of the case on the terminated and after jurisdiction had already been
ground of forum shopping. vested in the Special Investigating Committee. Such
act violates the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Once
DECS-Region VI turned over the records of the case
jurisdiction is acquired by or attached to a proper
to the Ombudsman (Visayas) for adjudication, stating
investigative body or agency, such jurisdiction
that "it is the impression of this Office that the
continues until the termination of the case.
complainants intend that their case be heard by the
Office of the Ombudsman and that Office had also In any event, since We are not dealing with
jurisdiction but mainly with venue, considering both
Page 2 of 2 – ADMIN Case Digest

court concerned do have jurisdiction over the cause of


action of the parties herein against each other, the
better rule in the event of conflict between two courts
of concurrent jurisdiction as in the present case, is to
allow the litigation to be tried and decided by the court
which, under the circumstances obtaining in the
controversy, would, in the mind of this Court, be in a
better position to serve the interests of justice,
considering the nature of the controversy, the
comparative accessibility of the court to the parties,
having in view their peculiar positions and capabilities,
and other similar factors.

Considering that the respondent is a public school


teacher who is covered by the provisions of Rep. Act
No. 4670, the Magna Carta for Public School
Teachers, the DECS-Region VI is in a better position
to decide the matter. Moreover, the DECS has
already commenced proceedings over the
administrative case by constituting the Special
Investigating Committee.

You might also like