Eleazar vs. Office of the Ombudsman

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals is the proper remedy to assail the Office of the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative complaint, notwithstanding the finality of that dismissal at the administrative level. The Ombudsman's exoneration of a respondent, though final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, remains susceptible to judicial review upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

The parties are members of the Eleazar family of Laoac, Pangasinan. Petitioner Eloisa M. Eleazar is the wife of Rodrigo C. Eleazar and the mother of petitioners' co-complainant Virgelio M. Eleazar and of Gener M. Eleazar; the respondents are PSI Lodovico M. Eleazar, Jr., PO2 Jomar B. Camat, PO2 Billy Joe M. Collado, PO3 Erwin E. Lopez, Barangay Captain Edgar M. Eleazar, and Barangay Kagawad Rogelio E. Lopez. The dispute concerns the administrative liability of the respondent police officers and barangay officials for the deaths of Rodrigo and Gener, and the procedural framework governing judicial review of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases under Republic Act No. 6770, The Ombudsman Act of 1989, and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.

In the afternoon of 19 June 2011, six armed men arrived at the residential compound of Rodrigo C. Eleazar in Laoac, Pangasinan, where Rodrigo lived with his wife, petitioner Eloisa M. Eleazar, and their sons, petitioner Virgelio M. Eleazar and Gener M. Eleazar. The group consisted of PSI Lodovico M. Eleazar, Jr., PO2 Jomar B. Camat, PO2 Billy Joe M. Collado, PO3 Erwin E. Lopez, Barangay Captain Edgar M. Eleazar, and Barangay Kagawad Rogelio E. Lopez, all of whom carried long rifles.

Upon arriving at the compound, PSI Lodovico initiated a verbal argument with Gener. Seeing the two arguing, Eloisa approached Gener and instructed him to stop, then called Virgelio to assist her in bringing Gener to his house inside the compound. Rodrigo arrived and likewise directed Gener to stop arguing with PSI Lodovico. As the family was bringing Gener home, Brgy. Capt. Eleazar and Kagawad Lopez came from the opposite direction and, according to petitioners, for no reason at all began punching and kicking Gener. The mauling continued despite Virgelio's attempts to pacify both men. Fearing for Eloisa's safety, Rodrigo instructed her to proceed home, but even before she could leave the scene, PSI Lodovico purportedly shot Rodrigo while his back was turned away from him. Rodrigo fell to the ground and Eloisa checked on him. Several gunshots then rang out from the company of the respondents, and Eloisa noticed Gener running to hide behind a nearby tree inside their compound. Virgelio, meanwhile, ran inside his house, which was located only 25 meters from the scene. Eloisa thereafter left Rodrigo to seek help from her brother-in-law, Marcelino Eleazar. Gener, still hiding behind the tree, was approached from behind by PSI Lodovico, who then shot him at point-blank range on the chest — a shooting that Virgelio claimed to have witnessed from inside his residence.

Respondents recounted a different version. According to them, the deaths of Rodrigo and Gener came as a result of a legitimate shoot-out. They narrated that on the day of the incident they went to the place of the incident to respond to a report of indiscriminate firing being committed by Gener. Upon reaching the place, PSI Lodovico confronted Gener and warned him to cease from indiscriminately firing his gun. During the confrontation, Rodrigo sided with his son, prompting Brgy. Capt. Eleazar to admonish him too. Rodrigo and Gener resented the admonition and reacted violently by shooting at the respondents, hitting Brgy. Capt. Edgar Eleazar, Kagawad Lopez, and PO3 Lopez. An exchange of gunfire thereafter ensued, resulting in the death of Rodrigo and Gener. Respondents contended that two caliber .45 firearms belonging to the two fatalities were recovered from the scene, along with several spent shells coming from those handguns.

Eloisa filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman against all six respondents; Virgelio joined as co-complainant in the Position Paper for the Complainants filed before the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman treated them both as complainants. In its Decision dated January 17, 2012, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, holding that respondents were able to adduce clear, convincing, and credible evidence to rebut petitioners' charges. The Ombudsman found that the following circumstances lent credence to respondents' averments: (a) respondents merely responded to a report that someone was firing his gun indiscriminately; (b) the request for police assistance was recorded in the logbook; (c) PO3 Lopez, Brgy. Capt. Eleazar, and Kagawad Lopez sustained injuries during the incident; (d) petitioners failed to refute respondents' claim that Rodrigo and Gener were responsible for the injuries sustained by the respondents; and (e) the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Lingayen, Pangasinan, in its Joint Resolution dated September 1, 2011, found that respondents were justified in shooting Rodrigo and Gener as they were acting in the lawful exercise of their duty. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated October 10, 2012, prompting the filing of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners ascribed grave abuse of discretion to the Ombudsman for dismissing the administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct, and sought relief from the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Office of the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative complaint.
• Proper Remedy: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals is the proper remedy to question the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative case.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Yes. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative complaint, the dismissal being subject to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion notwithstanding its finality at the administrative level.
• Proper Remedy: Yes. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals is the correct procedure to assail the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative case; the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the remedy was a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, judicial review of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases was originally directed to the Supreme Court. In Fabian vs. Hon. Desierto, however, the Court declared Section 27 unconstitutional for increasing the Court's appellate jurisdiction in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution, and ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. In Joson vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, et al., the Court clarified that while the Ombudsman's ruling absolving a respondent of an administrative charge possesses the character of finality under Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules and is thus not subject to appeal, decisions of administrative agencies remain subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, or when such bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion. The correct procedure in such a case is to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to question the Ombudsman's dismissal of the administrative charge. Because petitioners did exactly this, the Court of Appeals wrongly held that the petition for certiorari filed before it was an improper mode of questioning the Ombudsman's dismissal and erroneously ruled that the remedy available to petitioners was the filing of a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court.
• Proper Remedy: The finality of the Ombudsman's dismissal at the administrative level does not foreclose judicial recourse; it merely removes the ordinary appeal. The complainant, who is denied the right to appeal where the Ombudsman has exonerated the respondent, is not left without corrective recourse, because the exoneration may still be challenged through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. That petition must be filed with the Court of Appeals, not with the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over petitioners' petition for certiorari, the case was remanded to it for further proceedings and resolution on the merits.

• Finality of the Ombudsman's Exoneration at the Administrative Level — Under Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, where the respondent is absolved of the charge, the decision is final and unappealable. The complainant in an administrative complaint is denied the right to appeal where the Ombudsman has exonerated the respondent; only the respondent is granted the right to appeal, and only where he is found liable and the penalty imposed is higher than public censure, reprimand, one-month suspension, or a fine equivalent to one month's salary. In this case, the Ombudsman's dismissal of the administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct was final at the administrative level, but that finality did not bar judicial review.
• Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Despite Administrative Finality — Though final and unappealable at the administrative level, decisions of administrative agencies remain subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, or when such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion. The Court applied this principle to hold that the Ombudsman's exoneration of the respondents could still be challenged.
• Proper Remedy Against the Ombudsman's Dismissal of an Administrative Case — The correct procedure to assail the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative case, or the administrative aspect of its decision, is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion, filed with the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioners availed of precisely this remedy and that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• Unconstitutionality of Section 27, Republic Act No. 6770 — Section 27 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989, which directed appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 45, was declared unconstitutional in Fabian vs. Hon. Desierto for increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence, in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Appeals from such decisions should instead be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.

• "Though final and unappealable in the administrative level, the decisions of administrative agencies are still subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, or when such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion." — This passage, quoted by the Court from Joson vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, et al., states the ratio decidendi for why the Ombudsman's exoneration of the respondents did not foreclose judicial recourse despite its administrative finality.
• "Specifically, the correct procedure is to file a petition for certiorari before the CA to question the Ombudsman's decision of dismissal of the administrative charge." — This passage, also drawn from Joson, identifies the precise remedy and forum for challenging the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative complaint, and supplies the controlling rule that the Court of Appeals misapplied.
• "Thus, the proper procedure to assail the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative case or the administrative aspect of its decision, is via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, ascribing grave abuse of discretion, to be filed with the CA." — This is the Court's own formulation of the governing rule in the present case, resolving the procedural question on which the Court of Appeals had dismissed the petition.
• "Inasmuch as the CA has jurisdiction over petitioners' petition for certiorari, the case is remanded to the CA for further proceedings, and resolution on its merits." — This passage states the dispositive consequence of the ruling: the Court of Appeals' dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was reversed and the case remanded for adjudication on the merits.

• Fabian vs. Hon. Desierto, 356 Phil. 787 (1998) — Controlling precedent. Declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 unconstitutional for increasing the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution, and ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
• Joson vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, et al., 784 Phil. 172 (2016) — Followed and quoted at length. Held that the Ombudsman's ruling absolving a respondent of an administrative charge possesses the character of finality and is not subject to appeal, but that the correct procedure to question such dismissal is a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals; the failure to do so rendered the Ombudsman's ruling final.
• Reyes, Jr. vs. Belisario — Quoted within the Joson discussion. Held that Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules denies the complainant in an administrative complaint the right to appeal where the Ombudsman has exonerated the respondent, and that only the respondent is granted the right to appeal, and only where he is found liable and the penalty imposed is higher than public censure, reprimand, one-month suspension, or a fine equivalent to one month's salary.

• Section 27, Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Provided that in all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten days from receipt of written notice, in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court noted that this provision previously directed judicial review of Ombudsman decisions to the Supreme Court, but that it was declared unconstitutional in Fabian.
• Section 30, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Provides that no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the Constitution without its advice and concurrence. This was the constitutional basis for the declaration in Fabian that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is unconstitutional.
• Section 7, Rule III, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman — Provides that where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. The Court applied this provision to characterize the Ombudsman's dismissal as final at the administrative level, while holding that such finality did not preclude judicial review for grave abuse of discretion.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari. The Court held that this is the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative case, and that the petition must be filed with the Court of Appeals.
• Rule 43, Rules of Court — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Fabian, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are taken to the Court of Appeals under this Rule.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur. Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on official leave.