Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas)

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the Ombudsman’s dismissal of a criminal complaint must be filed with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals; appeals from the Ombudsman’s administrative disciplinary decisions must be taken to the Court of Appeals via petition for review under Rule 43.

Bernante, an Assistant Professor IV at Cebu State College of Science and Technology, served a 20-day prison term from May 14 to June 2, 1996, for slight physical injuries. During this period, he filed applications for forced leave (May 15–21) and vacation leave (May 22–31), which the school superintendent approved. Bernante received his salary for this period. Enemecio, a utility worker at the same institution, later discovered the incarceration and filed complaints alleging Bernante falsified his leave forms by concealing his imprisonment to receive unearned salary.

• March 30, 1998: Enemecio filed administrative and criminal complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas)
• Administrative: OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0201
• Criminal: OMB-VIS-CRIM-98-0286 (falsification of public document)
• January 13, 2000: Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint (gross misconduct, falsification, defamation)
• January 13, 2000: Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause
• February 28, 2000: Ombudsman denied motion for reconsideration of the criminal dismissal
• March 22, 2000: Enemecio received notice of the Ombudsman’s February 28 Order
• May 8, 2000: Enemecio filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 58875), assailing the dismissal of the criminal complaint
• May 31, 2000: CA dismissed the petition as an inappropriate remedy (out of time, should have been Rule 43 petition for review, not Rule 65 certiorari)
• December 7, 2000: CA denied reconsideration, clarifying that Fabian applies only to administrative disciplinary cases; since the petition assailed the criminal dismissal, the CA lacked jurisdiction (such certiorari petitions must go to the SC)
• Petition for review filed with the SC

• Parties: Agustina M. Enemecio (utility worker, petitioner) vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) and Servando Bernante (Assistant Professor IV, private respondent)
• Nature of Action: Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the CA, elevated to the SC via petition for review
• Core Allegations:
  • Bernante caused spray-painting of obscenities on school walls and shouted defamatory words (“buricat,” “putang ina,” “maot”) at Enemecio
  • Bernante filed falsified leave applications for May 15–31, 1996, failing to disclose he was incarcerated for slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. NR-1678-CR)
  • Bernante received salary during incarceration, constituting malversation
• Ombudsman’s Findings:
  • Leave applications were duly approved by the proper authority (Superintendent Andres T. Melencion)
  • No regulation requires an employee to specify the purpose or use of earned leave credits; no requirement to disclose incarceration
  • Insufficient evidence linking Bernante to the spray-painting or defamation
  • Defamation incident (March 10, 1998) not related to official functions; administrative action premature absent final conviction

• The CA gravely abused discretion in refusing to assume jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari
• Certiorari under Rule 65 was the appropriate remedy because the Ombudsman’s order was “final and unappealable,” leaving no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
• Fabian v. Desierto voided only the provision allowing appeals from administrative disciplinary cases to the SC; it did not affect the finality of orders exonerating respondents from criminal liability
• Enemecio proved malversation by showing Bernante received salary while in prison
• Bernante admitted signing the leave applications, constituting falsification because he failed to indicate he was incarcerated

• (Through the Ombudsman’s resolutions and CA rulings)
• The petition was filed out of time (received notice March 22, 2000; filed May 8, 2000—beyond the 15-day period for filing a petition for review under Rule 43)
• Certiorari is not the proper remedy; administrative disciplinary appeals must follow Rule 43 to the CA
• For criminal cases, certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed with the SC, not the CA
• No falsification occurred: there was no legal obligation to disclose incarceration in leave forms; the leave was duly approved
• No malversation: receiving salary during approved leave is not illegal
• Defamation was not connected to official functions; administrative action requires prior conviction per Palma v. Fortich

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition for certiorari filed with the CA was the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint
  • Whether the CA had jurisdiction over the petition
  • Whether petitioner and counsel should be admonished for attempting to mislead the SC by changing their theory on appeal (claiming the petition assailed the administrative case when records showed it assailed the criminal dismissal)
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for falsification of public documents and malversation

• Procedural:
  • The petition must be dismissed for being the wrong remedy in the wrong forum. Certiorari under Rule 65 to question the dismissal of a criminal complaint by the Ombudsman must be filed with the SC, not the CA (citing Baylon v. Office of the Ombudsman)
  • Even if treated as assailing the administrative dismissal, the proper remedy is petition for review under Rule 43 to the CA, not certiorari under Rule 65
  • Enemecio and her counsel, Atty. Terence L. Fernandez, were admonished for attempting to mislead the SC. The prefatory statement of the CA petition clearly showed it assailed the criminal case dismissal, yet on appeal to the SC, they claimed it assailed the administrative dismissal. Such conduct falls short of the honesty required of the Bar.
• Substantive:
  • No grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s dismissal.
  • Falsification: The elements of falsification of public documents by untruthful narration of facts (Art. 171, par. 4, RPC) require a legal obligation to disclose the truth. Enemecio failed to identify any law requiring Bernante to disclose he would spend his leave in prison. The leave forms did not require such disclosure; they were duly approved.
  • Malversation: No evidence showed Bernante appropriated public funds with intent to defraud; he merely received salary during approved leave.
  • Ombudsman’s Discretion: Under PCGG v. Desierto, the Ombudsman has broad discretion to determine if a criminal case should proceed. The Ombudsman thoroughly examined the merits; the dismissal was not arbitrary.

• Fabian v. Desierto — Appeals from administrative disciplinary decisions of the Ombudsman must be taken to the CA under Rule 43, not directly to the SC. This ruling affects only the designation of the proper forum and mode of appeal; the provisions in Section 27 of RA 6770 regarding the finality of Ombudsman decisions remain valid.
• Baylon v. Office of the Ombudsman — Where the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause in criminal cases is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the SC. Such a petition cannot be filed with the CA.
• Elements of Falsification of Public Documents (Art. 171, par. 4, RPC) — (1) offender makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth; (3) facts narrated are absolutely false; (4) perversion of truth was made with wrongful intent to injure a third person. “Legal obligation” means a law specifically requires disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated.
• PCGG v. Desierto — The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed; may dismiss a complaint forthwith if insufficient in form or substance; has the power to dismiss outright without conducting a preliminary investigation.
• Palma v. Fortich — Administrative offenses are classified into: (1) those related to the discharge of official functions; (2) those not so connected. For the second category involving moral turpitude not linked to official duties, conviction by final judgment is required as a condition precedent to administrative action.

• "As the Ombudsman correctly pointed out, Enemecio failed to point to any law imposing upon Bernante the legal obligation to disclose where he was going to spend his leave of absence. 'Legal obligation' means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated."
• "We cannot countenance the sudden and complete turnabout of Enemecio and her counsel... Atty. Fernandez's conduct has fallen far too short of the honesty required of every member of the Bar."
• "As an officer of the court, Atty. Fernandez is duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. He must always bear in mind that good faith and honorable dealings with judicial tribunals are primary obligations of an attorney."

• Fabian v. Desierto (356 Phil. 787 [1998]) — Controlling precedent establishing that appeals from Ombudsman administrative disciplinary decisions must be taken to the CA under Rule 43, not directly to the SC.
• Baylon v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 142738, 14 December 2001, 372 SCRA 437) — Established that certiorari under Rule 65 to question an Ombudsman’s dismissal of a criminal case must be filed with the SC.
• Barata v. Abalos, Jr. (411 Phil. 204 [2001]) and Lapid v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142261, 29 June 2000, 334 SCRA 738) — Supporting the interpretation that Fabian affects only the designation of forum and mode of appeal for administrative cases.
• PCGG v. Desierto (G.R. No. 140358, 8 December 2000, 347 SCRA 561) — On the Ombudsman’s discretion to dismiss complaints insufficient in form or substance.
• Relucio v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 147182, 21 November 2002) and Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan (364 Phil. 890 [1999]) — Cited for the elements of falsification under Art. 171, RPC.

• Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Mode of appeal from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases to the CA.
• Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Special civil action of certiorari; proper vehicle to question Ombudsman dismissals of criminal cases, but must be filed with the SC.
• Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Provisions on appeals from Ombudsman decisions; partially affected by Fabian (the portion designating the SC as the forum for administrative appeals is voided), but the provision declaring decisions “final and unappealable” remains valid.
• Section 14 of RA 6770 — Retains the SC’s power to review decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.
• Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code — Falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; elements discussed in detail.