Tolosa v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Napoleon C. Tolosa, Jr. filed complaints against respondent Elizabeth B. Tatel, the Chief Administrative Officer for Finance of the Department of Education (DepEd), Regional Office IX. The complaints alleged that Tatel, in her capacity as supervisor of the Regional Payroll Services Unit and Team Leader of the Automatic Payroll Deduction System (APDS) Task Force, violated Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and committed grave misconduct. Specifically, Tolosa claimed Tatel obtained a P150,000.00 loan from One Network Bank (ONB), an accredited lending institution for DepEd teachers, on October 23, 2008. Tolosa further alleged that Tatel circumvented the usual salary deduction process by having her payments coursed through ONB's Davao City branch and that her actions created a conflict of interest and compromised her position. Procedural History: Following the filing of the complaints, the Office of the Ombudsman conducted preliminary and administrative investigations. Tatel admitted obtaining the loan but denied any violation, asserting her actions were personal and did not constitute a conflict of interest or a violation of DepEd rules. She also counter-alleged that the complaints were retaliatory. The Ombudsman, in a Joint-Resolution dated November 20, 2013, dismissed both the criminal and administrative complaints for lack of evidence and probable cause, respectively. The Ombudsman found no prohibition for Tatel to obtain the loan and no evidence of solicitation or violation of ethical standards. Tatel's counter-charge was dismissed for lack of a separate affidavit-complaint. After the Ombudsman denied Tatel's motion for reconsideration, Tolosa filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated April 7, 2017, affirmed the Ombudsman's dismissal but ruled that Tolosa had availed of the wrong remedy, stating that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court was the proper recourse for assailing the Ombudsman's exoneration in the administrative case, as such decisions are final and unappealable. The CA, however, proceeded to review the merits and found no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. Tolosa's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that the Ombudsman's decision was final and unappealable and in affirming the Ombudsman's findings of no probable cause for the criminal charge and no substantial evidence for the administrative charges. Tolosa contends that the CA committed reversible error in its procedural and substantive rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the Ombudsman's decision is final and unappealable and that the proper remedy should be a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in finding no probable cause to indict respondent for violating Sections 7(d) and 8(a) of R.A. No. 6713. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no substantial evidence to hold respondent administratively liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. While the criminal and administrative cases were jointly decided, they are separate and require different modes of appeal. The proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's dismissal of a criminal case for alleged grave abuse of discretion is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court. For administrative cases, appeals from the Ombudsman's decisions are elevated to the CA under Rule 43. However, a decision of the Ombudsman absolving a respondent of an administrative charge is final and unappealable. The complainant is not entitled to a corrective recourse to reverse exoneration. Nevertheless, such administrative decisions are still subject to judicial review if the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law, which is to be filed via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. Petitioner's reliance on Cortes v. Ombudsman was misplaced as it did not justify the resort to a Rule 43 petition for review when the administrative exoneration was final and unappealable. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy and should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court to assail the Ombudsman's dismissal of both complaints. On the finding of no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 6713: The Court agreed with the Ombudsman and the CA that there was no probable cause to indict respondent for violation of R.A. No. 6713. The Ombudsman has wide latitude in determining probable cause, which needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe the accused committed it. In this case, respondent proved that as head of the Regional APDS Task Force, she lacked the authority to regulate or revoke accredited lending institutions. The petitioner's allegations were found to be self-serving and uncorroborated. There was no apparent prohibition for budget officers to obtain loans from lending institutions, even if they were tasked with effecting salary deductions. Furthermore, there was no evidence that respondent solicited the loan; it was presumed she applied and qualified. Her loan terms were not shown to be different from other borrowers, and the payment method was the only deviation, which did not prove she took advantage of her position. The Court reiterated that findings of fact by the Ombudsman are generally not reviewable by certiorari unless there is a clear case of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present here. On the finding of no substantial evidence for grave misconduct and dishonesty: The Court concurred with the Ombudsman's finding that petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove the administrative charges of grave misconduct and dishonesty. As previously discussed, the decision absolving respondent of the administrative charge was final and unappealable. While the Ombudsman's administrative decisions are subject to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner failed to file the proper petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. Therefore, the Ombudsman's decision exonerating respondent had become final. Even if the merits were considered, the Ombudsman's findings were upheld as there was no grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's contention that the CA erred in affirming the Ombudsman's findings was based on questioning the appreciation of facts, which is not a proper subject for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A decision of the Ombudsman absolving a respondent of an administrative charge is final and unappealable. While a complainant is not entitled to a corrective recourse to reverse exoneration, the decision is still subject to judicial review via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if there is grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law.