LOCGOV – 128

Manuel Laxina Sr. v. Ombudsman, DILG Sec. Jose Lina and Mayor Feliciano Belmonte (2005)
J. Tinga

Doctrine: The Constitution mandates the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring public officials. RA
6770 gives the Ombudsman or his deputies jurisdiction over complaints on all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance
and non-feasance. On the other hand, RA 7160 (Local Gov’t Code) the sangguniang panglungsod or sangguniang
bayan has disciplinary authority over any elective barangay official. The aforequoted laws show that the
Ombudsman may have concurrent jurisdiction with city councils over administrative cases against elective officials.

Facts:
1. Manuel Laxina Sr. was Brgy Chairman of Batasan Hills, QC. Batasan Hills brgy. clerk Evangeline Ursal filed a
complaint for attempted rape against Laxina, with the NBI. Laxina was thereafter charged with sexual
harassment before the RTC of QC.
2. March 13, 2000 – Ursal filed a complaint affidavit before the DILG against Laxina for grave misconduct
(due to the alleged attempted rape). DILG referred the complaint to the QC Council as an administrative
case. Ursal then filed with the Ombudsman a similar complaint-affidavit, charging the same thing.
3. The Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Ombudsman exonerated Laxina, for lack of evidence.
4. July 2, 2001 – Laxina was found guilty of grave misconduct and his dismissal was ordered through a
Memorandum Order by the Ombudsman. Laxina filed an MR, alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the Ombudsman. MR was denied.
5. Ursal asked the City Council to waive its jurisdiction in favor of the Ombudsman; request was just noted.
6. As AAB ordered, QC Mayor Belmonte issued order to implement the Ombudsman’s Memorandum Order
7. CA dismissed Laxina’s petition, alleging that Laxina was estopped from impugning the Ombudsman’s
jurisdiction as he had already participated in the proceedings before the Ombudsman and he only
questioned the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction after it had found him guilty of grave misconduct.
a. Ombudsman’s assumption of jurisdiction was justified since it became aware of the earlier case
before the City Council only with Laxina’s filing of an MR.
b. Ombudsman was justified in not dismissing the administrative cases as penalty for forum-
shopping because Laxina and Ursal are in pari delicto.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
1. Office of the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over the administrative complaint. Ursal’s filing of the same
administrative case before the Ombudsman and the City Council through the DILG should have led to the
dismissal of both cases
2. He was denied due process in the proceedings before the Ombudsman because his dismissal was ordered
without substantial evidence and without consideration of his own evidence
3. CA was wrong when it refused to prevent respondents from prematurely implementing the memorandum
order dismissing him despite the fact that the order is not yet final and executory (based on Lapid v. CA)
4. Estoppel cannot apply to him because he never invoked the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman or sought
relief therefrom.
5. He is entitled to reinstatement because Admin. Order 7, amended by AO 14-A of the Ombudsman
decreeing that all administrative orders and decisions are immediately executory notwithstanding the
perfection of an appeal is contrary to the mandate of RA 6770
Respondents’ Arguments (Ombudsman’s):
1. City Council’s assumption of jurisdiction over the case will not deprive the Ombudsman of jurisdiction
over a similar case filed before it. Even if there was forum-shopping, Laxina is estopped from questioning
such defect. Also, since an administrative proceeding is involved, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied.
Issue: W/N the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over the administrative complaint filed against Laxina despite the fact
that a similar complaint has already been filed with the DILG and forwarded to the City Council.

Held/Ratio: YES
1. Forum-shopping applies only to judicial cases and not to administrative cases.
 a. Petitioner did not cite any rule or circular on forum shopping issued by the Ombudsman or the
City Council. Only on Sept. 15, 2003 did the Ombudsman (through AO 17) require a certificate of
non-forum shopping to be attached to the written complaint against a public official or
employee. SC administrative circulars cited by the petitioner only mentioned initiatory pleadings
(e.g., original complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, 3 rd (4th, etc.) party complaint, complaint –in-
intervention, petition) in a court of law when another case is pending before other tribunals or
agencies of the government
b. The identical complaint-affidavits filed by Ursal before the City Council and the Ombudsman are
not typical initiatory pleadings, as they only contain a recital of the alleged culpable acts of
Laxina. Ursal did not make any claim for relief or ask for penalty for Laxina.
2. Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case despite the City Council acquiring jurisdiction over the matter
earlier.
a. The Constitution mandates the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring public
officials. RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman or his deputies jurisdiction over complaints on all kinds
of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance. On the other hand, RA 7160 (Local Gov’t Code)
the sangguniang panglungsod or sangguniang bayan has disciplinary authority over any elective
barangay official. The aforequoted laws show that the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction
with the QC city council over administrative cases against elective officials like Laxina.
b. Ombudsman was not aware of the pending case before the QC city council when the
administrative complaint was filed before it and there was also no mention of such complaint in
the complaint-affidavit or in the counter-affidavit of Laxina.
3. Estoppel prevents Laxina from raising questions on the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
a. Estoppel by laches – failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do
what, by exercising due diligence, ought to have been done earlier, which raises the presumptio
that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or acquiesced to the correctness of its
resolution. (Based on public policy, to discourage stale claims)
b. Laxina is estopped because he participated in the proceedings before the Ombudsman by filing
his counter-affidavit with supporting evidence. He also did not inform the Ombudsman of the
other administrative complaint before the QC City Council.
i. Participation in the administrative proceedings w/o raising an objection to it bars the
parties from raising jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered against
them.
4. Petitioner was not deprived due process as he was granted the opportunity to be heard, as he was
required to answer the formal charge and given a chance to present evidence on his behalf. Also, the
decision of the Ombudsman is supported by substantial evidence.
a. Laxina’s reliance on the rules on the prosecution of rape is misplaced before before the
Ombudsman, the issue is whether his acts constitute grave misconduct and not if he is guilty of
rape.
b. Laxina’s evidence was not credible, while Ursal’s allegations were, because said allegations were
backed up by medical findings, NBI reports and attendant circumstances.
5. It was improper for the Ombudsman to order the implementation of the Memorandum Order before it
became final and executory
a. Lapid v. CA – Sec. 27 of the Ombudsman Act  all other decisions of the Ombudsman which
impose penalties that are not enumerated in Sec. 27 are not final and immediately executory. A
timely appeal (like the one filed by Laxina) will stay the immediate implementation of the
decision. The judgment will only become final after the lapse of the reglementary period of
appeal if not appeal is perfected, and only then will it be a final and executory judgment where
execution will issue as a matter of right.
i. Laxina’s prayed for injunction however cannot be granted anymore as the
implementation has already been effected, Laxina had already stepped down and a new
barangay chairman for Batasan Hills has already been sworn in.

Digested by: Robert Beltejar