G.R. No. 214312. September 05, 2018
GERALDINE C. ORNALES, ROSENDO R. EGUIA, VINCENT U. VERGARA, RODOLFO A. DE CASTRO, JR., AND RAMIRO V. MAGNAYE, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, ROBERTO RICALDE, MODESTO DE LEON, ALICIA MANGUBAT, AND LENELITA BALBOA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case originated from the Sangguniang Bayan of Lemery, Batangas’s authorization for the mayor to enter into a loan and a direct contract with Amellar Solutions for a computerization project, bypassing public bidding. Respondents filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and the Government Procurement Reform Act (R.A. No. 9184). The Ombudsman found probable cause and, in a Joint Resolution dated February 7, 2013, recommended the indictment of the municipal officials for violation of Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (Usurpation of Authority) and Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman also found them administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, assailing the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution and Order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the proper remedy from the Ombudsman’s ruling in an administrative case is an appeal via a petition for review under Rule 43, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The petitioners 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 certiorari for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reiterating the established rule on the proper mode of judicial review for Ombudsman decisions. The ruling in Fabian v. Desierto clearly delineates the appellate pathways: decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43. In contrast, its decisions in criminal cases, specifically the finding of probable cause, may be challenged before the Supreme Court through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. The Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution in this case contained both criminal and administrative findings. However, the petitioners’ recourse to the Court of Appeals was specifically to challenge the administrative finding of Grave Misconduct. For this component, the prescribed remedy was a Rule 43 petition. By filing a Rule 65 petition instead, they availed of the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Since the petitioners failed to use the correct mode of appeal within the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction over the petition and correctly dismissed it. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice, and their strict observance is mandatory.