DIGEST/ HANNAH GRACE REFUGIO/ ADELAIDA YATCO VS. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, MARLYN "LEN" BELIZARIO ALONTE-NAGUIT, WALFREDO REYES DIMAGUILA, JR., VIRGILIO M. DIMARANAN, AND ANGELITO ALONALON

 

ADELAIDA  YATCO  VS. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, MARLYN "LEN" BELIZARIO ALONTE-NAGUIT, WALFREDO REYES DIMAGUILA, JR., VIRGILIO M. DIMARANAN, AND ANGELITO ALONALON

G.R. No. 244775, July 06, 2020

FACTS

Adelaida Yatco, herein petitioner, filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against respondents who were the officials of Biñan, Laguna, particularly then Mayor Marlyn B. Alonte-Naguit, then Vice Mayor Walfredo R. Dimaguila, Jr., Municipal Accountant Virgilio M. Dimaranan, and Municipal Treasurer Angelita Alonalon, for violations of RA 3019, RA 6713, Plunder, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Dishonesty, in relation to the purchase of a property for the expansion of the municipal cemetery. Petitioner alleged that the purchase was disadvantageous to the government and that respondent Alonte-Naguit had financial interest in the transaction.

The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and lack of substantial evidence. It held, among others, that Alonte-Naguit had no direct or indirect financial interest in the subject transaction because the portion purchased by the municipality did not include the portion of the estate owned by her mother and that the purchase price was not grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government since it reflected the fair market value of similar properties in the vicinity. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied and later filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA, assailing the entirety of the Ombudsman's ruling. She explained that since the Ombudsman "consolidated the decision for both the criminal and the administrative" aspects of the case, she filed the petition before the CA "as a whole."

One of the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In turn, petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss citing Cortes v. Office of the Ombudsman  and argued that "in cases involving consolidation of administrative and criminal complaints, the aggrieved party has the option to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the CA or directly file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court." The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari  as regards the criminal aspect of the case and held that it has jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, and accordingly, it cannot review the Ombudsman's decisions in criminal or non-administrative cases. Further, it ruled that petitioner misconstrued the ruling in Cortes, because it did not contain a categorical pronouncement that an aggrieved party has alternative remedies in case of a consolidated decision by the Ombudsman resolving administrative and criminal complaints. 

ISSUE                                             

Whether or not the CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari as regards the criminal aspect of cases coming from the Ombudsman.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that in this case, the Ombudsman, through a Joint Resolution, exonerated respondents from administrative liability and dismissed the criminal charges due to lack of probable cause. After petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, she assailed the Joint Resolution by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. While this is the proper procedural recourse to assail the administrative aspect of the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution, the same is not true for its criminal aspect. With respect to administrative charges, there is a delineation between appealable and unappealable Ombudsman rulings. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, any order, directive or decision of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month's salary shall be final and unappealable. Case law has explained that Ombudsman rulings which exonerate the respondent from administrative liability are, by implication, also considered final and unappealable. In these instances, the Court has ruled that even though such rulings are final and unappealable, it is still subject to judicial review on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, and the correct procedure is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA.

In dismissing petitioners' petition for lack of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals cited the case of Fabian vs. Desierto. The appellate court correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. In the Fabian case, we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It bears stressing that when we declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional, we categorically stated that said provision is involved only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. It cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal action. In fine, we hold that the present petition should have been filed with this Court. Thus, it is evident from the foregoing that the remedy to assail the ruling of the Ombudsman in non-administrative/criminal cases is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence. The petitioner insists that when the Ombudsman issues a consolidated decision on administrative and criminal charges, the aggrieved party has alternative remedies, i.e., to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA or a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court. Considering that the case at bar was a consolidation of an administrative and a criminal complaint, petitioner had the option to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals or directly file a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before this Court. Neither of these two remedies was resorted to by petitioner.

To reiterate, the prevailing rule is that the petition for certiorari questioning the criminal incident of the case should be tiled with the Supreme Court, and not with the CA. Hence, the CA correctly dismissed the petition filed before it insofar as the criminal aspect is concerned.