Yatco v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Adelaida Yatco filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Marlyn B. Alonte-Naguit and other municipal officials of Biñan, Laguna. The complaint alleged violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Plunder, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Dishonesty. These charges stemmed from the purchase of a property for the expansion of the municipal cemetery, with petitioner alleging the transaction was disadvantageous to the government and that respondent Alonte-Naguit had a financial interest in it. Procedural History: The Ombudsman, in a Joint Resolution dated August 17, 2017, dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and substantial evidence, finding no financial interest for Alonte-Naguit and that the purchase price was fair market value. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, she filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the entirety of the Ombudsman's ruling. The CA, however, partly dismissed the petition, ruling it had no jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of the cases originating from the Ombudsman. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's Resolution dated February 7, 2019, which dismissed her petition for certiorari concerning the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman's consolidated decision. Petitioner argues that when the Ombudsman issues a consolidated decision on administrative and criminal charges, an aggrieved party has alternative remedies: either a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA or a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, must determine if the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari regarding the criminal aspect, considering established jurisprudence on the distinct remedies for administrative and criminal rulings of the Ombudsman.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari as regards the criminal aspect of cases coming from the Ombudsman. Whether a consolidated decision by the Ombudsman on administrative and criminal charges allows for alternative remedies of filing a petition for review under Rule 43 with the CA or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, and the interpretation of Cortes v. Office of the Ombudsman.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The February 7, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 156633 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over Ombudsman rulings and the remedy for criminal charges from the Ombudsman: The Court reiterated that the remedies to assail Ombudsman rulings are well-settled. For administrative charges, decisions imposing public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month's salary are final and unappealable but subject to judicial review on grave abuse of discretion via Rule 65 before the CA. Where the penalty is greater, the decision is appealable via Rule 43 before the CA. For criminal charges, the remedy from an Ombudsman resolution finding probable cause is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, not the CA, as consistently ruled since Fabian v. Desierto. The CA's jurisdiction is limited to administrative cases. On the effect of consolidated decisions and the interpretation of Cortes v. Office of the Ombudsman: The Court held that a consolidated ruling on administrative and criminal charges does not alter the prescribed remedy for each aspect. Consolidation is procedural. The aggrieved party must pursue separate remedies: Rule 65 certiorari for the criminal aspect and Rule 43 appeal for the administrative aspect. These remedies are mutually exclusive. The Court found petitioner's reliance on Cortes to be mistaken, clarifying that the administrative aspect could be assailed via Rule 43 with the CA, and the criminal aspect via Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. The CA correctly dismissed the petition concerning the criminal aspect. Given that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari concerning the criminal aspect due to lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman's resolution, the petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court was denied, affirming the CA's resolution.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, and accordingly, it cannot review the Ombudsman's decisions in criminal or non-administrative cases. The remedy to assail the ruling of the Ombudsman in non-administrative/criminal cases is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.