ALICIAS, JR. v. ATTY. MACATANGAY

Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. Vs. Atty. Myrna V. Macatangay, et al.

A.C. No. 7478
January 11, 2017

FACTS:

A complaint was filed by Alicias, an Associate Professor in the College of Education of the University of the Philippines against Dean Leticia P. Ho for violation of Republic Act No. 6713. CSC found that the complaint was insufficient to support a prima facie case against Ho and was dismissed. Alicia did not receive a copy of the resolution. The records show that it was mistakenly sent to his old address.  Alicias filed the administrative complaint before the Court accusing Macatangay, Zerna, Ronquillo and Buenaflor of violation of Lawyer’s Oath or Code of Professional Responsibility, gross neglect of duty, and gross ignorance of the law. The court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.

Commissioner found that the complaint was baseless and Alicias failed to show sufficient proof in support of his claims, thus dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the IBP can exercise jurisdiction on the administrative complaint?

RULING: 

NO.

The IBP has no jurisdiction over the disbarment complaint. The administrative complaint must be file with the Office of the Ombudsman. The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the administrative disciplinary authority to investigate and prosecute and act or omission of any government official when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Office of the Ombudsman is the government agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of government officials. “in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the government to the people.”