Villavert vs. Desierto

Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases must be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, not to the Supreme Court; Sec. 27 of RA 6770, insofar as it authorizes such appeals to the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional. A petition for review filed with the Supreme Court before 15 March 1999 is not dismissed outright but referred to the Court of Appeals for final disposition.

Petitioner Douglas R. Villavert served as Sales and Promotion Supervisor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), Cebu Branch, where he was responsible for the sale and disposal of sweepstakes tickets withdrawn by him, which were already considered sold. Because he was not expected to sell all withdrawn tickets on his own, the PCSO allowed him to consign tickets to ticket outlets and to engage the help of sales agents, usually sidewalk peddlers and hawkers. The petition was brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Sec. 27 of RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the provision then understood to authorize appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases to the Supreme Court.

Douglas R. Villavert held the position of Sales and Promotion Supervisor at the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), Cebu Branch, and was charged with the sale and disposal of sweepstakes tickets withdrawn by him, which were already considered sold. Because he was not expected to dispose of all withdrawn tickets personally, the PCSO permitted him to consign tickets to ticket outlets and to engage the assistance of sales agents, usually sidewalk peddlers and hawkers. Over the two months of weekly draws spanning 20 March to 12 June 1994, Villavert accumulated a total of P997,373.60 in unpaid PCSO tickets.

On 13 October 1994 Villavert wrote Manuel L. Morato, Chairman and Acting General Manager of the PCSO, proposing to settle his unpaid ticket accounts. His proposal consisted of a P50,000.00 cash down payment, payment of the remaining amount in equal monthly installments of P5,000.00, application of all his per diems and commissions to his account as they became due, and the sale of fifty booklets or more per draw. On 11 January 1995 Lorna H. Muñez, COA State Auditor III, wrote Villavert demanding immediate settlement of his past due ticket accounts in the total amount of P997,373.60 with interest at fourteen percent (14%) per annum, and requiring him to submit within seventy-two hours a written explanation for the delay. Villavert responded that he had already submitted a proposal for settlement and that, pending its approval, he had already paid a total of P23,920.68.

On 26 January 1995 the PCSO Board of Directors approved Resolution No. 059, Series of 1995, adopting the Management Committee's recommendation to reinstate sales supervisors Rene de Guia and Luis Renolla, Jr., and to rehabilitate their accounts. On the strength of that Resolution, Carlos M. Castillo, OIC Manager of the Sales Department, requested Chairman Morato to extend to Villavert the same terms and conditions given to de Guia and Renolla, Jr. On 20 February 1995 Santos M. Alquizalas, COA Director IV, recommended to Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo C. Mojica that the shortage in Villavert's ticket accounts be properly treated under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code, Sec. 3 of RA 3019, and RA 6713. Taken as a letter-complaint, the matter was docketed as Adm. Case No. OMB-VIS-ADM-95-0088.

On 27 February 1995 Villavert submitted an amended proposal of settlement: a down payment of ten percent (10%) of the total unpaid account, or P97,345.29, with the balance payable in equal monthly installments equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the down payment, or P9,734.52. He likewise bound himself to purchase all his tickets in cash thereafter, to maintain a ticket quota of no less than fifty booklets for the small draws and twenty-five booklets for the big draws, and to forfeit his salary for the month should he fail to meet his quota in any draw within that month. The amended proposal was favorably indorsed and recommended for approval by PCSO-Cebu Regional Manager William H. Medici and by PCSO OIC-Manager of the Sales Department Carlos M. Castillo. On 19 April 1995 Villavert filed his counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances that led him to incur the unpaid ticket accounts, emphasizing his proposal to settle his liability and underscoring the favorable indorsements of the PCSO officials.

On 4 June 1996 Villavert filed a Manifestation with the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas informing him of the approval by the PCSO Chairman and Acting General Manager of his amended proposal for settlement. By Order dated 14 August 1996, however, the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas required him to secure further approval from the PCSO Board of Directors. In compliance, Villavert submitted, among other things, a copy of the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the Regional Director of PCSO-Cebu manifesting the PCSO's disinterest in further prosecuting the case. On 20 December 1996 the PCSO Board of Directors approved Villavert's proposed settlement of 13 October 1994 through Resolution No. 1491, Series of 1996.

Graft Investigation Officer II Edgemelo C. Rosales, after considering the evidence submitted by Villavert, rendered a resolution recommending dismissal of Adm. Case No. OMB-VIS-ADM-95-0088 on three grounds: (a) the approval of Villavert's proposal of settlement by the PCSO Chairman-Acting General Manager; (b) the finding that he did not mismanage his responsibilities in the sale of sweepstakes tickets; and (c) the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the PCSO through its authorized representative. Notwithstanding that recommendation, the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas, through Director Virginia Palanca-Santiago, issued a Memorandum dated 17 July 1997 finding Villavert liable for administrative sanction for Grave Misconduct and/or Dishonesty and recommending his dismissal from the public service with all accessory penalties provided under Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989, of the Civil Service Commission. The Ombudsman approved the Memorandum on 7 November 1997, and the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas denied Villavert's Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated 30 January 1998, likewise approved by the Ombudsman on 3 April 1998.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Supreme Court may take cognizance of a petition for review on certiorari seeking annulment of a Memorandum of the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas, approved by the Ombudsman, in an administrative disciplinary case, in light of Sec. 27 of RA 6770 and the ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto.

• Jurisdiction: No. The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction, Sec. 27 of RA 6770 having been invalidated in Fabian vs. Desierto and Rule 45 precluding appeals from quasi-judicial agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman; the appeal lies with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Because the petition was filed on 18 June 1998, before the 15 March 1999 cutoff in A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC, it is referred rather than dismissed.

• Jurisdiction: The petition invoked Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Sec. 27 of RA 6770, which authorized appeals to the Supreme Court from orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. That statutory basis was removed when Fabian vs. Desierto declared Sec. 27 of RA 6770 violative of the proscription in Sec. 30, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution against a law increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence. The Court further noted in Fabian that Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, like the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Supreme Court. Consequently, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, as reiterated in Namuhe vs. Ombudsman, where the petition was likewise referred to the Court of Appeals for final disposition and considered as a petition for review under Rule 43. The Court then applied A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC, promulgated on 9 February 1999, which directed that any appeal by way of petition for review from a decision, final resolution, or order of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, or any special civil action relative thereto, filed with the Court after 15 March 1999 shall no longer be referred to the Court of Appeals but must forthwith be denied or dismissed. Because the instant petition was filed on 18 June 1998, before the cutoff date, referral for final disposition to the Court of Appeals remained in order. The Court reached no conclusion on the merits of the administrative charge against petitioner.

• Rule 43 as the proper mode of appeal from Ombudsman administrative disciplinary decisions — Appeals from a decision, final resolution, or order of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases must be taken to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45 does not lie for such appeals because it precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, like the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Supreme Court. In this case, the petition filed under Rule 45 was treated as a petition for review under Rule 43 and referred to the Court of Appeals for final disposition.
• Unconstitutionality of Sec. 27, RA 6770 — Sec. 27 of RA 6770, insofar as it authorizes an appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, is void for violating Sec. 30, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits any law increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence. The Court relied on Fabian vs. Desierto, which had struck down the provision, and accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction over the petition.
• Prospective cutoff under A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC — Under A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC, any appeal by way of petition for review from a decision, final resolution, or order of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, or any special civil action relative thereto, filed with the Court after 15 March 1999 shall no longer be referred to the Court of Appeals but must forthwith be denied or dismissed; petitions filed on or before that date remain referable to the Court of Appeals. Because the instant petition was filed on 18 June 1998, its referral for final disposition to the Court of Appeals was still in order.

• "In Fabian, Sec. 27 of RA 6770, which authorizes an appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, was declared violative of the proscription in Sec. 30, Art. VI, of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its advice and consent." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the Court's disclaimer of jurisdiction, tying the invalidation of the appeal mechanism to the constitutional limitation on legislation enlarging the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
• "In addition, the Court noted that Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, like the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Supreme Court. Consequently, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, as reiterated in the subsequent case of Namuhe v. Ombudsman." — This passage supplies the canonical formulation of the proper mode and forum for appealing Ombudsman administrative disciplinary decisions.
• "As the instant petition was filed prior to 15 March 1999, its referral for final disposition to the Court of Appeals is still in order." — This passage applies the prospective cutoff fixed by A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC and explains why the petition was referred rather than dismissed outright.

• Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, 16 September 1998, 295 SCRA 470 — Controlling precedent. It declared Sec. 27 of RA 6770 invalid insofar as it allows appeals to the Supreme Court in administrative disciplinary cases, and held that Rule 45 precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. The Court applied it to divest itself of jurisdiction over the instant petition.
• Namuhe vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 124965, 29 October 1998, 298 SCRA 298 — Followed. It reiterated that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, and, as in Fabian, the petition there was referred to the Court of Appeals for final disposition and considered as a petition for review under Rule 43.

• Sec. 27, RA 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 (10) days from receipt of written notice. The provision was declared invalid insofar as it authorizes appeals to the Supreme Court, thereby depriving the Court of jurisdiction over the petition.
• Sec. 30, Art. 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. Sec. 27 of RA 6770 was held violative of this proscription, which was the constitutional ground for invalidating the appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — The rule invoked by petitioner as the procedural vehicle for the petition. The Court noted that it precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, like the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Supreme Court, and thus could not serve as the basis for the Court's exercise of jurisdiction.
• Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — The proper mode of appeal from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. The instant case was referred to the Court of Appeals as a petition for review under this Rule.
• A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC — Administrative issuance promulgated on 9 February 1999 providing that any appeal by way of petition for review from a decision, final resolution, or order of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, or special civil action relative thereto, filed with the Court after 15 March 1999 shall no longer be referred to the Court of Appeals but must forthwith be denied or dismissed. Because the petition was filed before that date, referral to the Court of Appeals was ordered.

Justice Mendoza, Justice Quisumbing, and Justice De Leon, Jr. concurred. Justice Buena was on leave.