Albert Pat-og,Sr. Vs.

Civil Service Commission (CSC)

Pat-og is a 3rd year high school student in Mountain province. A complaint was filed
against Pat-og by his student Robert Bang-on. During their Basketball class Pat-og held
Roberts right arm and punched him on the stomach for not following instructions.
Robert suffered stomach pains and was confined for 3 day in the hospital.
Bang-on filed a case of Less Serious Physical Injuries against Pat-og in RTC Mountain
Province. Also, an administrative case was filed in CSC-CAR. Pat-og denies the
charges and offered sworn statements of student that he did not punch Bang-on.
Further, the CSC found a prima facie case against Pat-og.
During the pendency of the administrative case, The RTC ruled in favour of Bang-on.
Meanwhile, in the administrative case, formal offer of evidence were made by Bang-ons
party containing the decision of the RTC and several sworn statements of the
witnesses. Pat-og countered with investigation reports of a Municipal employee and
sworn statements as well that he did not punch Bang-on.
CSC-CAR ruled in favour of Bang-on sentencing Pat-og of 6 months suspension without
pay. Pat-og elevated the case in the CSC but the penalty was aggravated to dismissal
and loss of accrued benefits.
Now, Pat-og filed a motion for reconsideration, raising for the first time the issue of
CSCs jurisdiction. He alleged that administrative charges should initially heard by a
committee pursuant to the Magna Carta for teachers. CSC ruled that Pat-og is estopped
on challenging CSCs jurisdiction same with the CAs ruling.
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the petitioner is
estopped from questioning CSC jurisdiction to hear and decide in his case?
Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject
matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon
a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters,
it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another
body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have
concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body that first takes
cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. In
this case, it was CSC which first acquired jurisdiction over the case because the
complaint was filed before it. Thus, it had the authority to proceed and decide the case
to the exclusion of the DepEd and the Board of Professional Teachers
At any rate, granting that the CSC was without jurisdiction, the petitioner is indeed
estopped from raising the issue. Although the rule states that a jurisdictional question
may be raised at any time, such rule admits of the exception where, as in this case,
estoppel has supervened. Petition was dismissed but the penalty was lowered again to
6 months suspension without pay.

People vs. Henry T. Go

It was alleged that respondent Henry Go conspired with DOTC Sec. Enrile in his
capacity as PIATCO Chairman and President by entering in contract which is grossly
and manifestly disadvantageous with the government on the NAIA Phase 3 Project.
On September 20014, Sandiganbayan found probable cause to indict Sec. Enrile and
Go. However on the issuance of such resolution on 2004, Sec. Enrile is already dead.
On January 2005, an information was filed with the SB. March 2005 the prosecution
was required to show cause why the case should not be dismissed considering Sec.
Enriles death. Prosecution argued that SB acquired jurisdiction over Go by its voluntary
appearance on the consolidated Criminal Cases.
On June 2005, the information was quashed by the Court because given Sec. Enriles
death, Go being sued is a private person.
The court finds merit on the petition. SB is a special criminal court with exclusive original
in all cases involving violation of R.A. 3019 committed by certain public officers, as
enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals
who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public
officers.
In the instant case, respondent is being charged for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A.
3019, in conspiracy with then Secretary Enrile. Ideally, under the law, both respondent
and Secretary Enrile should have been charged before and tried jointly by the
Sandiganbayan. However, by reason of the death of the latter, this can no longer be
done.
Nonetheless, for reasons already discussed, it does not follow that the SB is already
divested of its jurisdiction over the person of and the case involving herein respondent.
To rule otherwise would mean that the power of a court to decide a case would no
longer be based on the law defining its jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the
death of one of the alleged offenders.