GR 229288; (August, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229288 August 1, 2018
SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.
FACTS
The Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a criminal complaint against several individuals, including petitioner Sherwin T. Gatchalian, arising from the 2009 sale of shares in Express Savings Bank, Inc. (ESBI) to the government-owned Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Gatchalian was an ESBI stockholder. The Ombudsman, in a Joint Resolution, found probable cause to indict Gatchalian for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Malversation, and violation of banking regulations. The Ombudsman ruled that while LWUA board members were directly responsible, the selling stockholders, including Gatchalian, profited from an unwarranted benefit given ESBI’s poor financial state, and conspired with LWUA officers to push through with the transaction in violation of law.
Gatchalian’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the Ombudsman’s resolutions for grave abuse of discretion. He argued lack of probable cause, claiming he was merely a stockholder not involved in negotiations. He invoked the case of Morales v. CA to justify filing the petition with the CA. The CA, however, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Morales pertained to administrative cases and preventive suspension, not criminal findings.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Gatchalian’s Petition for Certiorari for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the doctrine established in Fabian v. Desierto, which drew a distinction between administrative and criminal cases from the Ombudsman. For administrative cases, appeals are to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43. For criminal cases, the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause is not appealable and is subject to judicial review only through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. This rule has been consistently reiterated in subsequent jurisprudence, including Tiongco v. Hon. Desierto and Kuizon v. Ombudsman.
The Court clarified that the case of Morales v. CA, relied upon by Gatchalian, is not applicable. The Morales ruling pertained specifically to the review of an administrative order of preventive suspension, which is correctly appealed to the CA. It does not extend to or modify the settled rule governing criminal cases. Therefore, since Gatchalian sought to assail the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause in a criminal matter, his sole remedy was a Rule 65 petition filed directly with the Supreme Court. The CA thus acted correctly in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The petition was denied for being unmeritorious.