GR 146017; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146017 ; February 18, 2004
Dr. Alberto Nidoy, et al., petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Vice Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Rosario, La Union, filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Josephine Flores and Treasurer Violeta Garcia. The complaint alleged malversation, technical malversation, falsification, and violation of R.A. No. 3019 . Petitioners claimed that the municipality’s P1,351,000.00 share from the Tobacco Excise Tax Fund ( R.A. No. 7171 ) was improperly deposited into and disbursed from the General Fund instead of a dedicated trust account, violating relevant circulars requiring specific appropriations. They also alleged a falsified certification regarding the fund’s availability.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They subsequently filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, challenging the Ombudsman’s dismissal.
ISSUE
What is the proper remedy and forum for questioning the Ombudsman’s resolution dismissing a criminal complaint?
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the proper mode to elevate the Court of Appeals’ decision to the Supreme Court is via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The petitioners received the Court of Appeals’ dismissal resolution on November 10, 2000, giving them until November 25, 2000, to file a Rule 45 petition. However, they filed the instant Rule 65 petition only on December 6, 2000. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot serve as a substitute for a lost appeal. Since the period for the proper remedy of appeal via Rule 45 had lapsed, the Rule 65 petition was improper. The Court did not reach the substantive allegations of the original complaint, as the case was resolved solely on this procedural ground.