Soriano v. Cabais
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, President of Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM), filed a complaint for perjury against respondent Zenaida A. Cabais, a comptroller designated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to oversee RBSM's operations. The complaint stemmed from two affidavits executed by respondent, wherein she stated that RBSM paid Forcecollect Professional Solution, Inc. and Surecollect Professional Solution, Inc. P5.300 million and P5.750 million, respectively, without supporting documents, as payment of 25% collection fee, about a week before RBSM declared a "bank holiday" on January 4, 2000. Petitioner alleged that these statements were false. Procedural History: The City Prosecutor of Manila forwarded the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman, which recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause. The Ombudsman affirmed this recommendation, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review, holding that appeals from Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, should be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not with the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review filed before it because the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for perjury.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the proper remedy: The Court reiterated the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are taken to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43. However, for resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases or non-administrative cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the remedy is to file an original action for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65, as held in Estrada v. Desierto and Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals instead of a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman: Even assuming the petition was filed correctly, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's finding of no probable cause was based on the fact that the issuance and payment of the manager's checks were supported by Debit Advices and further bolstered by certifications from RBSM Accountant, RBSM Branch Accountant, and PDIC's Assisting Deputy Receiver. Moreover, the Ombudsman noted that a key element of perjury, a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood, was absent, as respondent believed in good faith that her statements were true, supported by RBSM records she had perused in her capacity as BSP Comptroller. Good faith is a defense in perjury, as established in People of the Philippines v. Abaya. The Court emphasized its consistent refrain from interfering with the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutorial powers absent compelling reasons, citing Nava v. National Bureau of Investigation.
Main Doctrine
Appeals from resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, must be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not with the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43.