Gatchalian v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Six criminal complaints were filed against various individuals, including petitioner Sherwin T. Gatchalian, stemming from the 2009 sale of shares in Express Savings Bank, Inc. (ESBI) to the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Gatchalian was accused of violating provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), malversation under the Revised Penal Code, and violations of the Manual of Regulations for Banks in relation to Republic Act No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act). The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Gatchalian for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, malversation of public funds, and violation of MORB provisions, concluding that Gatchalian, as a stockholder who sold shares, profited from the transaction with LWUA, a government-owned and controlled corporation, despite ESBI's precarious financial standing. The Ombudsman also found conspiracy among LWUA officers, ESBI officers, and ESBI stockholders, including Gatchalian, to ensure LWUA's acquisition of a controlling stake in ESBI, contravening banking laws and regulations. Procedural History: The Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution on March 16, 2015, finding probable cause against Gatchalian and others, which was later denied reconsideration via a Joint Order on April 4, 2016. Aggrieved, Gatchalian filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The CA, however, issued a Resolution on September 13, 2016, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the case, opining that decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases could only be assailed before the Supreme Court. Gatchalian sought reconsideration, reiterating his arguments on the CA's jurisdiction based on the Morales v. Court of Appeals ruling. The CA denied this motion in a Resolution dated January 13, 2017. Consequently, Gatchalian filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Gatchalian filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions that dismissed his Petition for Certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. He contended that the CA erred in dismissing his petition, arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling in Morales v. Court of Appeals established that the CA has jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 against Ombudsman decisions in both administrative and criminal cases. The core of his argument was that the unconstitutionality of Section 14 of R.A. 6770, as declared in Morales, extended the CA's review powers to criminal cases decided by the Ombudsman, thereby granting it jurisdiction over his petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Gatchalian's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 for its alleged lack of jurisdiction over the said case. Whether the ruling in Morales v. Court of Appeals expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to include petitions for certiorari against decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Court affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 13, 2016, and January 13, 2017, in CA-G.R. SP No. 145852, which dismissed Gatchalian's Petition for Certiorari for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases: The Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that the Court of Appeals (CA) has jurisdiction only over decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, as laid down in Fabian v. Desierto and Kuizon v. Desierto. For decisions, resolutions, or orders of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases, the remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, especially when alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the ruling in Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario acknowledged the remedy of certiorari but did not specify the court, which was later clarified in Estrada v. Desierto to be the Supreme Court. The cases of Ombudsman v. Heirs of Margarita Vda. De Ventura, Soriano v. Cabais, and Duyon v. Court of Appeals consistently upheld this principle. The Court stressed the importance of adhering to established precedents under the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere. The established rules on appellate procedure, distinguishing between administrative and non-administrative cases decided by the Ombudsman, were upheld. Consequently, the CA did not err in dismissing Gatchalian's petition for lack of jurisdiction, as the proper recourse was to file it with the Supreme Court. On the interpretation of Morales v. Court of Appeals: The Court disagreed with Gatchalian's contention that Morales v. Court of Appeals abandoned the established principles regarding the CA's jurisdiction. The Court explained that Morales involved a preventive suspension order in an administrative case, which was an interlocutory order and thus unappealable. The declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 14 of R.A. 6770 in Morales was specific to its provisions concerning appeals from administrative cases and did not alter the appellate procedure for criminal or non-administrative cases. The Court emphasized that the rule requiring petitions for certiorari against the Ombudsman's findings of probable cause in criminal cases to be filed with the Supreme Court was established by the Court itself in exercise of its rule-making powers, not based on the provisions of Section 14 of R.A. 6770. Therefore, Morales was correctly read in its proper context and did not grant the CA jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by the Ombudsman.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals (CA) does not have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases; such matters, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, must be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.