Villanueva v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Douglas R. Villavert, a Sales & Promotion Supervisor of PCSO Cebu, incurred P997,373.60 in unpaid PCSO tickets from March 20 to June 12, 1994. He proposed a settlement involving a down payment, monthly installments, application of per diems and commissions, and continued sale of tickets. COA Auditor demanded settlement and explanation. Petitioner submitted an amended proposal with a 10% down payment and monthly installments, promising to purchase tickets in cash and meet quotas. This amended proposal was favorably indorsed by PCSO officials. Petitioner later submitted an Affidavit of Desistance from PCSO, and the PCSO Board of Directors approved his settlement proposal. Procedural History: Despite a resolution recommending dismissal of the administrative case against petitioner due to the settlement and lack of mismanagement, the Deputy Ombudsman issued a Memorandum finding petitioner liable for Grave Misconduct and/or Dishonesty, recommending dismissal. The Ombudsman approved this Memorandum. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 27 of RA 6770, seeking to annul the Memorandum and Order of the Ombudsman.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner liable for Grave Misconduct and/or Dishonesty despite the settlement of his accounts and the Affidavit of Desistance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals for final disposition as a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Rule 45.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Court reiterated its ruling in Fabian v. Desierto and Namuhe v. Ombudsman, declaring Section 27 of RA 6770 invalid. This section, which authorized appeals to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, was found to be violative of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution. This constitutional provision prohibits laws that increase the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent. Furthermore, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Supreme Court. Consequently, appeals from such decisions must be filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that the instant petition was filed prior to March 15, 1999, making its referral to the Court of Appeals still in order, as per A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: While the Court did not rule on the merits of the administrative case due to lack of jurisdiction, it acknowledged the procedural history. The Graft Investigation Officer II had recommended dismissal based on the approval of the settlement proposal, findings that petitioner did not mismanage his responsibilities, and the Affidavit of Desistance. However, the Deputy Ombudsman, despite these findings, recommended dismissal for Grave Misconduct and/or Dishonesty. The Supreme Court's referral to the Court of Appeals implies that the substantive issues of misconduct and dishonesty would be addressed by the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases must be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, not directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, as Section 27 of RA 6770 was declared invalid.