G.R. No. 165012 September 16, 2008
RACHEL BEATRIZ RUIVIVAR, Petitioner, versus OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and DR. CONNIE BERNARDO, Respondents.

FACTS

On May 24, 2002, private respondent Dr. Connie Bernardo, President of the Association of Drug Testing Centers, filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman charging petitioner Rachel Beatriz Ruivivar, Chairperson of the LTO Accreditation Committee on Drug Testing, with serious misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a public official, abuse of authority, and violations of the Revised Penal Code and the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Bernardo alleged that on May 17, 2002, while at the LTO to follow up on her company’s accreditation application and to file a request to lift a moratorium, Ruivivar, without provocation, shouted at her in an arrogant and insulting manner, hurled invectives, and prevented her from entering the LTO Commissioner’s office, all in the presence of other employees and visitors. Bernardo submitted supporting affidavits from three witnesses. Ruivivar denied the allegations in her Counter-Affidavit, claiming she merely told Bernardo to bring her request to the LTO Assistant Secretary, and presented affidavits from two witnesses. After a preliminary conference where Ruivivar manifested her intent to submit the case for resolution, the Ombudsman directed the parties to submit memoranda; only Ruivivar filed one.
The Ombudsman rendered a Decision on November 4, 2002, finding Ruivivar administratively liable for discourtesy in the course of official duties and imposing the penalty of reprimand. The Ombudsman ruled that the verbal assault was sufficiently established by the affidavits of Bernardo’s witnesses, who had no shown motive to falsely testify, unlike Ruivivar’s witnesses who were her officemates. Ruivivar filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing she was deprived of due process as she was not furnished copies of the complainants’ witnesses’ affidavits. The Ombudsman responded by furnishing her the affidavits and directing her to file any pleading she deemed fit within ten days. Ruivivar received the affidavits but did not controvert them, maintaining in a Manifestation that her belated receipt did not cure the due process deprivation. The Ombudsman, in an Order dated February 12, 2003, ruled she was not denied due process and affirmed its Decision.
Ruivivar filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition in a Decision dated May 26, 2004, on the grounds that she used the wrong remedy and failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The CA held that, pursuant to Fabian v. Desierto, appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65. The CA also noted that Ruivivar had a speedy and adequate remedy when the Ombudsman gave her the opportunity to rebut the affidavits, which she failed to avail. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 20, 2004.
Ruivivar then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, raising two issues: (1) whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper and only available remedy when the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman is final and unappealable, and (2) whether she was denied due process by being deprived of the right to confront the evidence against her before the Ombudsman’s decision was rendered.

ISSUE

1. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail an Ombudsman decision imposing a penalty of reprimand, which is final and unappealable under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of A.O. No. 07.
2. Whether petitioner was denied due process when she was not furnished copies of the complainants’ witnesses’ affidavits before the Ombudsman rendered its decision.

RULING

1. On the Propriety of the Remedy: The Supreme Court ruled that the proper remedy to appeal a decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative disciplinary case is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as established in Fabian v. Desierto. This rule applies regardless of the penalty imposed. The Court clarified that the finality of a decision imposing a light penalty like reprimand refers to its unappealability to a higher administrative body, not to its immunity from judicial review. 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. Since a petition for review under Rule 43 was available, certiorari was not the proper remedy. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Ruivivar’s petition for certiorari on this ground.
2. On the Due Process Issue: The Supreme Court ruled that Ruivivar was not denied due process. Due process in administrative proceedings requires the opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in one’s defense. The records showed that Ruivivar was given this opportunity. She filed a Counter-Affidavit, attended a preliminary conference, and submitted a Memorandum. When she complained about not receiving the affidavits of Bernardo’s witnesses, the Ombudsman furnished them to her and explicitly directed her to file any pleading to controvert them within ten days. Ruivivar received the affidavits but chose not to file any supplemental pleading, merely maintaining her position on due process deprivation. By not availing herself of the opportunity to rebut the evidence, she effectively waived her right to do so. The Ombudsman’s decision was based on the pleadings and affidavits submitted, and its finding of discourtesy was supported by substantial evidence—the positive testimony of Bernardo’s witnesses, which outweighed Ruivivar’s denial. The belated furnishing of the affidavits, followed by the chance to contest them, cured any procedural irregularity.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Ruivivar’s petition for certiorari. The Ombudsman’s Decision and Order finding her administratively liable for discourtesy and imposing the penalty of reprimand were upheld.