G.R. No. 187896 -97; June 10, 2013
Amando P. Cortes, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), Victory M. Fernandez, Julio E. Sucgang and Nilo Igtanloc, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amando P. Cortes filed a criminal and administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) against respondents Victory M. Fernandez (Provincial Engineer), Julio E. Sucgang (Barangay Captain), and Nilo Igtanloc (Grader Operator) of the Province of Aklan. He alleged that from March 29 to April 1, 2006, they utilized a provincial heavy equipment grader to level a portion of his land (1.125 square meters), destroying several fruit trees. He charged them with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Misconduct, impleading Fernandez for issuing a driver’s trip ticket without first verifying if the roads were barangay roads. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) dismissed the cases in a Consolidated Evaluation Report dated December 14, 2006, on the ground that two other cases involving the same parties and issues had already been filed by petitioner. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 7, 2008. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, asserting errors including the dismissal based on prior similar cases, the alleged superiority of his Original Certificate of Title over a barangay road inventory, violation of his constitutional rights to due process and just compensation, and the lack of a clear factual and legal basis in the Ombudsman’s orders. Respondents countered that the complaint was a duplicate of earlier cases filed by petitioner’s brother, Hernando P. Cortes, over the same property, and that their actions were official duties.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari assailing the dismissal of his criminal and administrative complaints by the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas).

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the dismissal. Procedurally, the petition was dismissed outright because petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. For administrative disciplinary cases, appeal from the Ombudsman’s decision should be to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 (per Fabian v. Desierto), not directly to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 as petitioner did. For criminal complaints, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. Since petitioner’s consolidated complaints involved both administrative and criminal aspects, he had the option to file under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals or Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, but he did neither correctly.
Substantively, the dismissal was proper. Records showed that prior to petitioner’s complaint, his brother Hernando P. Cortes had filed identical criminal and administrative complaints against the same respondents (except Fernandez) concerning the same alleged grading and leveling of the same property. The Office of the Ombudsman had already dismissed those prior complaints for lack of merit on August 15, 2006. The property in question, though under different titles (petitioner’s OCT No. P-15197 and Hernando’s TCT No. T-34885 derived from that OCT), was essentially the same land. The Court found that the complaints involved the same parties, facts, issues, and arguments, making them one and the same. Allowing petitioner’s complaint to proceed would foster endless litigation. Thus, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case on the ground of prior resolution of identical issues.