The Supreme Court affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman’s authority to discipline local officials for grave misconduct in the case of Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman. The Court found that Franklin Alejandro, as Barangay Chairman, was liable for grave misconduct for interfering with a legitimate police operation. This ruling reinforces the Ombudsman’s power to ensure accountability among public officials and to directly impose administrative sanctions, including dismissal from service, when warranted by the evidence.

When a Barangay Chairman Oversteps: Upholding Police Authority and Preventing Misconduct

The case originated from an anti-water pilferage operation conducted by the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) at Mico Car Wash (MICO), owned by Alfredo Rap Alejandro. During the operation, the petitioner, Franklin Alejandro, who was the Barangay Chairman and Alfredo’s father, interfered by ordering men to unload confiscated containers, enabling the apprehended car-wash boys to escape. This prompted the Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau to file an administrative complaint against Alejandro for blatant refusal to recognize a legitimate police activity and unwarranted intervention.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Alejandro guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. The Deputy Ombudsman emphasized that Alejandro had overextended his authority and tolerated the illegal acts of MICO’s car-wash boys. Alejandro appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition for premature filing, stating that he failed to exhaust proper administrative remedies by not appealing the Deputy Ombudsman’s decision to the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court then took up the case to resolve whether the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies was properly applied, whether the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over elective officials and the power to order their dismissal, and whether Alejandro’s act constituted grave misconduct to warrant his dismissal.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, citing Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, which stipulates that a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari may be filed in cases where the penalty imposed is not merely public censure, reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. The Court clarified that the petitioner had fully exhausted all administrative remedies when he filed his motion for reconsideration on the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman, who was acting on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Section 7. FINALITY OF DECISION. — Where the respondent is absolved of the charge and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month, or a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari shall have been filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of RA 6770.

Building on this, the Court addressed the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over elective officials. While both Section 21 of The Ombudsman Act and the Local Government Code provide procedures to discipline elective officials, the Court clarified that the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases that fall within the jurisdiction of regular courts or administrative agencies. In administrative cases involving concurrent jurisdiction, 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.

In this instance, the complaint against Alejandro, a Barangay Chairman with a salary grade of 14, was initially filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. According to the Local Government Code, the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan has disciplinary authority over elective barangay officials. However, the Supreme Court affirmed that because the complaint was initially filed with the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction superseded that of the sangguniang bayan, whose jurisdiction was concurrent.

The Court emphasized that Section 15 of RA 6770 grants the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority, including the power to impose sanctions. The Ombudsman’s power is not merely recommendatory, but rather includes the authority to receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings, summon witnesses, and impose appropriate penalties. This authority ensures that the Ombudsman can effectively carry out its mandate as the protector of the people against corrupt government officials. The decision cites Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio, where the Supreme Court stated:

It is likewise apparent that under RA 6770, the lawmakers intended to provide the Office of the Ombudsman with sufficient muscle to ensure that it can effectively carry out its mandate as protector of the people against inept and corrupt government officers and employees. The Office was granted the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. It was given disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies (with the exception only of impeachable officers, members of Congress and the Judiciary). Also, it can preventively suspend any officer under its authority pending an investigation when the case so warrants.

Addressing the substantive issue of whether Alejandro was liable for grave misconduct, the Court acknowledged that while maintaining peace and order is a shared function of the police and the Barangay Chairman, crime prevention is primarily a police matter. While Alejandro, as Barangay Chairman, had a duty to maintain public order, he overstepped his authority by interfering with a legitimate police operation. Instead of assisting the PNP-CIDG, he ordered bystanders to defy the police, causing further commotion and leading to the escape of the apprehended individuals.

The Court contrasted the roles of the Barangay Chairman and the police, noting that while the Barangay Chairman has general charge of affairs, the police have predominant authority, especially when acting on an enforcement matter. The police have the authority to investigate and prevent crimes, effect arrests, and bring offenders to justice. Therefore, Alejandro’s interference with the police operation constituted a violation of his duty and a hindrance to the enforcement of the law.

The Court elaborated on the concept of misconduct, distinguishing between simple and grave misconduct. Misconduct is considered grave if accompanied by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules, all of which must be supported by substantial evidence. In this case, Alejandro’s open interference in a legitimate police activity demonstrated a clear intent to violate the law and reneged on his obligation as a grassroots official to enforce the law. This act, compounded by the fact that his son owned the car wash involved in water pilferage, qualified the misconduct as grave, warranting dismissal from service according to Section 52(A)(3), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Barangay Chairman Franklin Alejandro was guilty of grave misconduct for interfering with a legitimate police operation against water pilferage.
Does the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over local elective officials?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Ombudsman has disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials, including local elective officials, except those removable only by impeachment.
What constitutes grave misconduct in this context?	Grave misconduct involves a clear intent to violate the law, corruption, or a flagrant disregard of established rules, supported by substantial evidence, as demonstrated by Alejandro’s actions.
What was the Barangay Chairman’s role in maintaining peace and order?	While the Barangay Chairman has a duty to maintain public order, this role does not supersede the authority of law enforcement officials conducting legitimate operations.
What is the effect of filing a complaint with the Ombudsman first?	When a complaint is initially filed with the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction takes precedence over other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction, such as the sangguniang bayan.
What penalty can the Ombudsman impose for grave misconduct?	The Ombudsman has the power to impose administrative sanctions, including dismissal from service, for grave misconduct, as provided under RA 6770 and the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Why was the exhaustion of administrative remedies issue dismissed?	The Supreme Court ruled that filing a motion for reconsideration with the Deputy Ombudsman, who acted on behalf of the Ombudsman, sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies.
Can the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority be considered merely recommendatory?	No, the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority is direct and includes the power to impose administrative sanctions, not merely to recommend them.
What should local officials learn from this case?	Local officials should understand the limits of their authority and respect the lawful actions of law enforcement agencies, avoiding any interference that could obstruct justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman underscores the importance of accountability among public officials and reinforces the Ombudsman’s crucial role in upholding ethical conduct in governance. The ruling serves as a reminder that local officials must respect the authority of law enforcement and refrain from actions that undermine the administration of justice. The Ombudsman’s power to directly impose administrative sanctions ensures that erring public officials are held accountable for their actions, promoting transparency and integrity in public service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Franklin Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173121, April 03, 2013