[G.R. No. 145953.June 19, 2001]
R. JOSE, JR. vs. CA, et al.
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JUN
G.R. No. 145953(Alfredo R. Jose Jr., vs. Court of Appeals
and Civil Service Commission.)
This is a petition for certiorari
from the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 30, 2000 in CA G.R. SP No.
55191 affirming in toto the resolution of the Civil Service Commission
dated October 27, 1998 denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss the
administrative complaint filed against him.
The petitioner is a stenographic reporter in the
office of the Ombudsman.Sometime in
1996 a certain Blesilda Servando, petitioner's officemate, filed a complaint
against him before the grievance committee of the said office for conduct
unbecoming a government employee and for rumor mongering.The complaint was assigned to a panel of
investigators.Before termination of
the investigation at the grievance committee level, and before the case was
docketed as an administrative case, the complaint was withdrawn on November 8,
1996.Meanwhile, another complaint
based on the same facts was filed by the same complainant with the regional
office of the Civil Service Commission.The Regional Office of the CSC assumed jurisdiction over the complaint
and after due investigation a formal charge was filed against herein petitioner
on January 8, 1997 before the said office.Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the charges filed against him on
the ground that the Ombudsman grievance committee has assumed jurisdiction over
the complaint.The CSC Regional Office
denied the motion.The order denying
the motion to dismiss was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission and by the
Court of Appeals.
Hence, this petition.
The petitioner's main
contention is that the Regional Office of the Civil Service Commission erred in
assuming jurisdiction over the case even before the grievance committee of the
Ombudsman, where both the complainant and the respondent are employed, has
terminated its investigation.It is
claimed that the grievance committee first assumed jurisdiction over the case
to the exclusion of all other tribunals.
In its resolution
affirming the findings of the regional office, the Civil Service Commission
took into consideration the fact that the complaint filed before the Ombudsman
was already withdrawn by the complaint on November 8, 1996 or prior to the
filing of formal charges against the petitioner by the regional office of the
Commission on January 8, 1997.Accordingly, the regional office of the Commission correctly assumed
jurisdiction over the case.The Court
of Appeals affirmed the resolution of the Commission based on the same legal
We find no grave abuse of
discretion committed by the appellate court.
Section 29 of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of Executive Order 292 on Civil Service Laws
Commission may assume original jurisdiction on complaints filed directly before
it against any other official or employee.For this purpose, it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any
other officer of the department or agency to conduct the investigation and to
receive evidence.The results of the
investigation together with the evidence adduced and recommendation shall be
submitted to the commission for decision."
The withdrawal of the
complaint filed before the Ombudsman, prior to the filing of formal charges
against the petitioner by the regional office of the Commission, is not
disputed by the petitioner.The said
withdrawal is supported by an official letter sent by the office of the
Ombudsman, and that of the complainant, to the Commission.The Chairman of the grievance committee of
the Ombudsman even informed the regional office of the Commission that the said
complaint was withdrawn even before it ripened into an administrative
case.Accordingly, the Ombudsman ceased
to have jurisdiction over the complaint once it was withdrawn and the regional
office of the Commission properly assumed jurisdiction over the complaint
directly filed before it under the above-quoted rule.When the regional office filed formal charges against the
petitioner there was no pending investigation before the grievance committee of
the Ombudsman to speak of.We find no
grave abuse of discretion committed by the appellate court in upholding the
finding of the Commission that the regional office properly assume jurisdiction
over the case.
Wherefore, the petition is
dismissed for lack of merit.
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court