ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145847.December 4, 2002]

DE JESUS vs. OFC. OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 4 DEC 2002.

G.R. No. 145847(Rodolfo S. de Jesus, Petitioner vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Prudencio M. Reyes, Jr. and Reynaldo M. Tadiar, Respondents.)

Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision dated July 19, 2000 of the Office of the Ombudsman, as well as the Order dated September 7, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint for oppression and harassment filed by petitioner Rodolfo S. De Jesus ("De Jesus" for brevity) against officials of the Local Water Utilities Administration ("LWUA" for brevity).

The antecedents are as follows:

On March 31, 2000, De Jesus, then LWUA Deputy Administrator for Services received Office Order No. 099.00 ("Order" for brevity) dated March 30, 2000, signed by LWUA Administrator Prudencio M. Reyes, Jr. ("Reyes" for brevity). The Order directed De Jesus along with LWUA Deputy Administrators Simplicio C. Belisario, Jr. ("Belisario" for brevity) and Emmanuel S. Malicdem ("Malicdem" for brevity) to desist from performing and exercising the functions and activities pertaining to their positions. The Order further directed them to relinquish and turn over their office rooms to Reynaldo M. Tadiar ("Tadiar"), Mariano Quitoriano ("Quitoriano") and Armando Fernandez ("Fernandez"), who were designated Officers-In-Charge of their respective offices.

In the afternoon of April 2, 2000, Quitoriano and Fernandez moved into the respective office rooms of Belisario and Malicdem. Tadiar occupied De Jesus' office room in the afternoon of April 13, 2000.

On the same day, De Jesus, Belisario and Malicdem filed an administrative complaint for oppression and harassment against Reyes Quitoriano, Tadiar and Fernandez before the Office of the Ombudsman docketed as OMB-ADM-0-00-0377. They assailed the validity of Office Order No. 099.00 and the subsequent take over of their respective office rooms allegedly with the use of force and intimidation.

After the requisite pleadings were filed, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a Decision dated July 19, 2000, dismissing the administrative case. The dispositive portion reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents PRUDENCIO M. REYES, JR. Administrator, MARIO QUITORIANO, REYNALDO M. TADIAR and ARMANDO FERNANDEZ, Department Managers, all of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) are hereby EXONERATED of the charges against them. Accordingly, the instant administrative case is DISMISSED, as it is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

On August 16, 2000, De Jesus, Belisario and Malicdem filed a joint motion for reconsideration based on, among others, the existence of new evidence. They invoked Civil Service Commission En Banc Resolution No. 001729 dated July 26, 2000 which ruled that the re-assignment of De Jesus, Belisario and Malicdem, "was not in order."

Hence, the instant petition filed by De Jesus on November 23, 2000, more than a year after the Court issued the Resolution proscribing the filing in this Court of special civil actions from the decision or final resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases.

We quote in full the Resolution promulgated by the Court in A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC on February 9, 1999, to wit:

"IN RE: DENIAL OF APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION OR FINAL RESOLUTION OR ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AND DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION RELATIVE TO SUCH DECISION, RESOLUTION OR ORDER

In light of the decision in Fabian v. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 129742, 16 September 1998), any appeal by way of petition for review from a decision or final resolution or order of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, or special civil action relative to such decision, resolution or order filed with the Court after 15 March 1999 shall no longer be referred to the Court of Appeals, but must be forthwith DENIED or DISMISSED, respectively.

Let this Resolution be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines and copies thereof furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Ombudsman.

x x x."

The Resolution leaves no room for construction and interpretation, only strict compliance.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE