GR 133715; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133715 February 23, 2000
Douglas R. Villavert, petitioner, vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, in his capacity as Ombudsman, Hon. Arturo C. Mojica, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas, and Commission on Audit, Region VII, Cebu City, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Douglas R. Villavert, a Sales & Promotion Supervisor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Cebu Branch, incurred a shortage of P997,373.60 from unpaid sweepstakes tickets. He proactively submitted a proposal to settle his liability, which was later amended and favorably endorsed by his PCSO superiors. The PCSO Board of Directors eventually approved his settlement proposal via Resolution. Furthermore, the PCSO Regional Director executed an Affidavit of Desistance, manifesting the agency’s disinterest in prosecuting him. Based on these developments, the Graft Investigation Officer recommended the dismissal of the administrative case.
Despite the favorable recommendation and the PCSO’s settlement and desistance, the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas issued a Memorandum finding Villavert liable for Grave Misconduct and/or Dishonesty and recommended his dismissal. The Ombudsman approved this memorandum. Villavert filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting him to file this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in relation to Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989).
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to directly review the administrative disciplinary decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in this case.
RULING
No, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction. The petition was anchored on Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770, which allowed appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. However, during the pendency of this case, the Court en banc promulgated its ruling in Fabian v. Desierto. In Fabian, the Court declared Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 unconstitutional for violating Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits Congress from increasing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence.
Consequently, the proper remedy from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases is an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Applying the ruling in Fabian, and since this petition was filed prior to March 15, 1999 (the date set for the referral of such pending cases to the Court of Appeals), the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits. Instead, it referred the case to the Court of Appeals for final disposition as a petition for review under Rule 43. The referral was procedural, intended to transfer the case to the proper appellate forum for a review of the Ombudsman’s factual and legal findings.