View full case

AMADO G. PEREZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

FACTS:

The case involves an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 from the resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its previous resolution which also dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, petitioners' petition for certiorari and mandamus. The petitioners, members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM), filed two complaints against several respondents, including then Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye, for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaints arose from the alleged destruction of the doors of the KBMBPM office by respondents while serving petitioners the Take-Over Order of the KBMBPM management issued by the Agriculture Secretary. The Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution dismissing the complaint against respondent Bunye, which the petitioners assailed in the CA through a petition for certiorari and mandamus. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing provisions in the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari, but erred in invoking provisions that apply to administrative cases instead of criminal cases. The Supreme Court also held that the proper remedy for the petitioners was to file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court instead of the CA. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition because the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against respondent Bunye.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the resolution which dismissed their petition for certiorari and mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

  2. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman, in issuing the resolution dismissing the complaint against respondent Bunye, acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The nature of the case determines the proper remedy to be filed and the appellate court where such remedy should be filed. If it is an administrative case, appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. If it is a criminal case, the proper remedy is to file with the Supreme Court an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

  2. The Office of the Ombudsman did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the resolution dismissing the complaint against respondent Bunye. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman as it found no evidence showing respondent Bunye's specific participation in the alleged incident. The Ombudsman's dismissal of the complaint against respondent Bunye was in order.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The proper remedy to be filed and the appellate court where such remedy should be filed is determined by the nature of the case. (Fabian v. Desierto)

  • Section 27 of RA 6770 applies only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. (Fabian v. Desierto)

  • Section 27 of RA 6770 is unconstitutional for expanding the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction without its advice and consent. (Fabian v. Desierto)

  • Petitions for certiorari questioning the Ombudsman's orders or decisions in criminal cases should be filed in the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeals. (Kuizon v. Ombudsman; Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman)

  • The Office of the Ombudsman has wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers, virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention, to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence. (Fabian v. Desierto)

  • The courts should respect the Ombudsman's findings in a preliminary investigation, unless there is grave abuse of discretion. (Fabian v. Desierto)