G.R. No. 141426. May 6, 2005
ZENAIDA F. LANTING, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, ANTI-GRAFT INVESTIGATOR OSCAR RAMOS, MAYOR LITO ATIENZA, EMMANUEL SISON, VIRGILIO FORBES, CHARITO RUMBO, DIRECTOR ERLINDA MAGALONG and ERNESTO SAW, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zenaida F. Lanting, an Administrative Officer IV of the Manila City Council, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against several city officials, including Mayor Lito Atienza. She charged them with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and alleged fraudulent publication of a vacant position under R.A. No. 7041. The complaint centered on the allegedly unlawful appointment of Ernesto Saw, Jr., claimed to be a Chinese citizen, and other questionable appointments of individuals, including relatives of a respondent. The Ombudsman, through Graft Investigator Oscar Ramos, issued a Resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint, finding no evidence to warrant prosecution. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to nullify the Ombudsman’s Resolution. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction over the assailed Resolution of the Ombudsman.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the CA lacked jurisdiction. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the complaint and the governing law on appeals from Ombudsman resolutions. Petitioner’s complaint before the Ombudsman was unequivocally criminal in character, alleging “willful, felonious, unlawful, odious and despicable criminal activities” for violations of R.A. No. 3019 and involving issues like falsification of public documents. It was not an administrative disciplinary case.
Under Section 14, paragraph 2, of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6770), decisions or findings of the Ombudsman may only be appealed to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law. This provision restricts judicial review of the Ombudsman’s actions to the High Court. The Court, in the landmark case of Fabian v. Desierto, established a clear distinction: appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Conversely, resolutions in criminal or non-administrative cases, such as the one filed by petitioner, fall outside the CA’s appellate jurisdiction. Since petitioner sought review of a resolution dismissing a criminal complaint, the proper remedy was a petition to the Supreme Court, not the CA. Therefore, the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review.