Cortes v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Amando P. Cortes filed criminal and administrative complaints against respondents Victory M. Fernandez, Julio E. Sucgang, and Nilo Igtanloc for violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Misconduct. Petitioner alleged that from March 29, 2006, to April 1, 2006, respondents utilized a provincial grader to level a portion of his land, destroying 1.125 square meters and several fruit trees. Petitioner claimed Fernandez failed to ascertain if the roads were barangay roads and issued a trip ticket to the grader operator. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) recommended dismissal due to two other cases involving the same parties and issues previously filed by petitioner. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) issued a Consolidated Evaluation Report and an Order denying the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the denial of his motion for reconsideration, citing grave errors by the Ombudsman in dismissing the complaint, in giving precedence to an inventory of barangay roads over an original certificate of title, in allowing violations of constitutional rights, and in failing to state the factual and legal basis of its orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in dismissing the complaint-affidavit on the ground that two cases involving the same issues were previously filed. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in finding that an inventory of barangay roads could prevail over an Original Certificate of Title; and Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in allowing respondents to violate the constitutional mandate provided for in the Bill of Rights. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in not clearly stating the law on which its Order and Consolidated Evaluation Report were based.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for availing of the wrong remedy. Even on substantial merit, the petition would likewise be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of the wrong remedy and the substantial merit of the case (identity of issues and parties): The Court reiterated that Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, which allowed appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 from Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases, was declared unconstitutional in Fabian v. Desierto. Appeals in administrative disciplinary cases should be filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. For criminal complaints, the remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court. Since the present case consolidated both administrative and criminal complaints, petitioner had the option to file under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals or under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. By filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitioner committed a procedural misstep warranting outright dismissal. The Court emphasized that jurisprudence clearly delineates the proper appellate remedies, and failure to adhere to these rules leads to dismissal. The Court noted that prior to the instant complaint, Atty. Hernando P. Cortes, petitioner's brother and co-owner of the property, had filed similar criminal and administrative complaints against respondents Igtanloc and Sucgang. These previous complaints were dismissed by the Ombudsman for lack of merit. The present complaint filed by petitioner involved the same facts, issues, and respondents, with the additional impleading of Fernandez. The Court found that the previous and present complaints, filed by brothers who are owners of the same affected property, with the same respondents, issues, and arguments, were essentially one and the same. Allowing a similar complaint to proceed after it had already been resolved would lead to endless litigation, which is frowned upon by the courts. The Ombudsman's dismissal on the ground of identity of issues and respondents was therefore justified. No specific ratio decidendi was provided in the text regarding whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in finding that an inventory of barangay roads could prevail over an Original Certificate of Title or whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in allowing respondents to violate the constitutional mandate provided for in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, there is no corresponding ratio for this issue. No specific ratio decidendi was provided in the text regarding whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in not clearly stating the law on which its Order and Consolidated Evaluation Report were based. Therefore, there is no corresponding ratio for this issue.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the incorrect remedy to appeal decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases; such appeals should be filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. For criminal complaints, the remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court. Availing of the wrong remedy warrants outright dismissal.