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

A.C. No. 7478. January 11, 2017

Facts:
Alicias filed an administrative complaint before the Court accusing
Macatangay, Zerna, Ronquillo, and Buenaflor of violation of the Lawyer's
Oath or Code of Professional Responsibility, gross neglect of duty, and
gross ignorance of the law. Alicias alleged that respondents, (1) did not
conduct a careful evaluation of the records; (2) did not hear the arguments
of both partes; (3) ignored uncontroverted documentary evidence adduced
by him; (4) erroneously applied established jurisprudence; (5) denied him
due process of law by not furnishing him a copy of the CSC's Order
directing the CSC-NCR to comment and a copy of the CSC-NCR comment;
and (6) willfully did not give him a copy of the Resolution of his petition for
review.
Respondents argued that Alicias was not denied due process because
after the denial of his motion for reconsideration, he still had the available
remedy of filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Court of
Appeals.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, dismissing the complaint
for lack of merit and likewise denied the motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not the IBP has jurisdiction over an administrative case
filed against the lawyers.

Held:
No. The IBP has no jurisdiction over the disbarment complaint. The
administrative complaint must be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.
In the present case, the allegations in Alicias' complaint against the
lawyers aforementioned all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of
their official duties as government lawyers working in the CSC, hence, it is
within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their superior or the
Office of the Ombudsman.