May 2004 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman : 131445 : May 27, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision
[G.R. NO. 131445 : May 27, 2004]
AMADO G. PEREZ (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS WIDOW GUILLERMA T. PEREZ, MARIO S. FRANCISCO, RAFAEL P. ARGAME, MIRASOL V. MENDOZA, GLORIA S. GONZALVO AND MARIA FE V. BOMBASE, Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, MAYOR IGNACIO R. BUNYE, CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ, ROGELIO P. MADRIAGA, RECTO CORONADO, TEODORA A. DIANG, TOMAS M. OSIAS, REYNALDO CAMILON AND BENJAMIN BULOS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 from the November 13, 1997 resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 45127, dismissing petitioners motion for reconsideration of its September 9, 1997 resolution2 which in turn dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, petitioners Petition for Certiorariand mandamus.The petition questioned the Office of the Ombudsmans April 11, 1997 dismissal of their criminal complaint against Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye.
Petitioners, members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM), instituted two complaints at the Office of the Ombudsman (docketed as OMB-0-89-0983 and OMB-0-89-1007) against several respondents, one of whom was then Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye, for violation of RA 3019 (also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Respondents allegedly destroyed the doors of the KBMBPM office while serving on petitioners the Take-Over Order of the KBMBPM management dated October 28, 1998 issued by then Agriculture Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez. crvll
In disposing of said complaints on April 11, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution (hereinafter,Ombudsman resolution)3 excluding respondent Bunye from the criminal indictment. The petitioners assailed the exclusion in the CA on September 1, 1997 through an original Petition for Certiorari and mandamus. The CA, however, dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction supposedly in accordance with Section 27 of RA 6770 (also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989). Citing Yabut v. Ombudsman,4 Alba v. Nitorreda 5 and Angchangco v. Ombudsman,6 the CA likewise denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this Petition for Review .
The CA was correct in dismissing the Petition for Certiorariand mandamus .
It is the nature of the case that determines the proper remedy to be filed and the appellate court where such remedy should be filed by a party aggrieved by the decisions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman. If it is an administrative case, appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.7 If it is a criminal case, the proper remedy is to file with the Supreme Court an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65.8 cralawred
We find that, although the CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari, it erroneously invoked as ratio decidendi Section 27 of RA 67709 which applies in administrative cases only, not criminal cases,10 such as the graft and corruption charge at bar. In our en banc decision in Fabian v. Desierto, 11 which is still controlling, we held that Section 27 applies only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. Nevertheless, we declared Section 27 unconstitutional for expanding the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction without its advice and consent. We thus held that all 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 Court.crv11
As the present controversy pertained to a criminal case, the petitioners were correct in availing of the remedy of Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 but they erred in filing it in the Court of Appeals. The procedure set out in Kuizon v. Ombudsman 12 and Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman, 13 requiringthat petitions for certiorari questioning the Ombudsmans orders or decisions in criminal cases should be filed in the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeals, is still the prevailing rule.14 cralawred
But even if the Petition for Certiorarihad been filed in this Court, we would have dismissed it just the same. First, petitioners should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman resolution as it was the plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, not filing a Petition for Certioraridirectly in the Supreme Court. Second, the Office of the Ombudsman did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Ombudsman resolution.
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, the exercise of power is in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.15 cralawred
In this case, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman in dismissing the complaint against respondent Bunye upon the factual finding that:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary