DIGEST/NORIZA JEAN DAGA/SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

 SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN, PETITIONER,

VS.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS. 

G.R. No. 229288, August 01, 2018

 

Facts:

            Six different criminal complaints were filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman, Cesar V. Purisima, and Rustico Tutol against several individuals, including petitioner Sherwin T. Gatchalian. 

In a joint resolution the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Gatchalian.  The respondents in the Ombudsman cases, including Gatchalian, filed separate motions for reconsideration of the Joint Resolution. However, on April 4, 2016, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order denying the motions for reconsideration. Aggrieved, Gatchalian filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and sought to annul the Joint Resolution and the Joint Order of the Ombudsman for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.  The CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction

 

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in dismissing Gatchalian's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 for its alleged lack of jurisdiction over the said case.

 

Ruling:

            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, it was 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 the Supreme Court declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional, it 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.  The present petition should have been filed with the SC.

            In Golangco vs. Fung the Court voided a decision of the CA which directed the Ombudsman to withdraw an Information already filed by it with a Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court in Golangco reasoned that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases."  With regard to orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases, the Court, in Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario, held that the remedy for the same is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

            In Kuizon v. Desierto and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman, the court held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari questioning resolutions or orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. For administrative cases, however, it was declared in the case of Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visavas) that the petition should be filed with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Dagan ruling homogenized the procedural rule with respect to administrative cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman — first enunciated in Fabian v. Desierto — that is, all remedies involving the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, whether by an appeal under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, must be filed with the Court of Appeals.

The Ombudsman's determination of probable cause may only be assailed through certiorari proceedings to the Supreme Court on the ground that such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.