Yatco vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon

The proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause—or the lack thereof—in criminal or non-administrative cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, and the fact that the Ombudsman issued a consolidated ruling on both administrative and criminal charges does not modify or merge the distinct procedural remedies available for each aspect.

Petitioner Adelaida Yatco filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against four officials of Biñan, Laguna — then Mayor Marlyn B. Alonte-Naguit, then Vice Mayor Walfredo R. Dimaguila, Jr., Municipal Accountant Virgilio M. Dimaranan, and Municipal Treasurer Angelita Alonalon — for violations of RA 3019, RA 6713, Plunder, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Dishonesty, all arising from the purchase of a property for the expansion of the municipal cemetery. The complaint alleged that the purchase was disadvantageous to the government and that Alonte-Naguit had a financial interest in the transaction. The Ombudsman consolidated the administrative and criminal aspects of the complaint and resolved them in a single Joint Resolution.

In 2016, petitioner Adelaida Yatco filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against four officials of Biñan, Laguna — then Mayor Marlyn B. Alonte-Naguit, then Vice Mayor Walfredo R. Dimaguila, Jr., Municipal Accountant Virgilio M. Dimaranan, and Municipal Treasurer Angelita Alonalon — for violations of RA 3019, RA 6713, Plunder, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Dishonesty. The charges stemmed from the purchase of a property for the expansion of the municipal cemetery. Petitioner alleged that the purchase was disadvantageous to the government and that Alonte-Naguit had a financial interest in the transaction.

The Ombudsman consolidated the administrative and criminal aspects of the complaint and, in a Joint Resolution dated August 17, 2017, dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and lack of substantial evidence. The Ombudsman held that Alonte-Naguit had no direct or indirect financial interest in the transaction because the portion purchased by the municipality did not include the portion of the estate owned by her mother. It also found that the purchase price was not grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government since it reflected the fair market value of similar properties in the vicinity. The charge for Plunder was likewise dismissed for failure to establish that respondents amassed ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least fifty million pesos. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated April 10, 2018.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, assailing the entirety of the Ombudsman's consolidated ruling. She explained that since the Ombudsman consolidated the decision for both the criminal and administrative aspects, she filed the petition before the CA "as a whole." Respondent Dimaguila filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner opposed the motion, citing Cortes vs. Office of the Ombudsman for the proposition that in cases involving consolidation of administrative and criminal complaints, the aggrieved party has the option to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 with the CA or directly file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court. The CA, in a Resolution dated February 7, 2019, dismissed the petition "as regards the criminal aspect of the case," holding that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases and that petitioner misconstrued the ruling in Cortes.

• Consolidated Ruling as Basis for Alternative Remedies: Petitioner insisted that when the Ombudsman issues a consolidated decision on administrative and criminal charges, the aggrieved party has alternative remedies — to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA or a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court — citing the 2013 case of Cortes vs. Office of the Ombudsman as basis.
• Filing Before the CA as a Whole: Petitioner explained that since the Ombudsman "consolidated the decision for both the criminal and the administrative" aspects of the case, she filed the petition before the CA "as a whole," treating the consolidated ruling as a single unitary disposition.

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Criminal Aspect: Respondent Dimaguila filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the CA lacked jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman's ruling, the CA's jurisdiction being limited to administrative disciplinary cases.

• Jurisdiction over Criminal Aspect: Whether the CA correctly dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari as regards the criminal aspect of cases coming from the Ombudsman.
• Effect of Consolidation on Remedies: Whether the Ombudsman's issuance of a consolidated ruling on administrative and criminal charges entitles the aggrieved party to alternative remedies, such that a single petition before the CA may assail both aspects.

• Jurisdiction over Criminal Aspect: Yes. The CA correctly dismissed the petition insofar as it assailed the criminal aspect, the proper remedy to question the Ombudsman's finding on probable cause in criminal cases being a Rule 65 petition filed with the Supreme Court, not the CA.
• Effect of Consolidation on Remedies: No. The issuance of a consolidated ruling does not alter the nature of the prescribed remedy corresponding to each aspect of the Ombudsman's ruling; the aggrieved party must separately assail the administrative and criminal components through their respective proper remedies.

• Jurisdiction over Criminal Aspect: The corresponding remedies to assail Ombudsman rulings are well-settled. For administrative charges, a distinction exists between appealable and unappealable rulings. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, rulings imposing public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month's salary are final and unappealable; by implication, rulings exonerating the respondent are likewise final and unappealable. In such instances, the proper remedy is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the CA on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. Where the penalty imposed exceeds those thresholds, the decision is appealable via Rule 43 before the CA. For criminal charges, however, the remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the Supreme Court, not the CA. This framework was traced through Fabian vs. Desierto (which held Section 27 of RA 6770 unconstitutional insofar as it increased the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction and directed administrative appeals to the CA under Rule 43), Kuizon vs. Desierto (which clarified that Fabian was limited to administrative cases and that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over incidents of criminal actions), Golangco vs. Fung (which voided a CA decision reviewing the Ombudsman's criminal ruling), Tirol, Jr. vs. Del Rosario (which held that the remedy for criminal cases is Rule 65 certiorari), and Estrada vs. Desierto (which specified that such petition should be filed with the Supreme Court). Here, the Ombudsman exonerated respondents administratively and dismissed the criminal charges for lack of probable cause. While a Rule 65 petition before the CA was proper to assail the administrative aspect (being an unappealable exoneration), the same was not proper for the criminal aspect, which should have been filed with the Supreme Court.

• Effect of Consolidation on Remedies: Petitioner's reliance on Cortes vs. Office of the Ombudsman was mistaken for two reasons. First, petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA to assail both aspects — a recourse that did not even conform to the supposed alternative remedies stated in Cortes (i.e., Rule 43 before the CA or Rule 65 before the Supreme Court). Second, the statement in Cortes — a division ruling — should not be taken as a modification of the well-settled configuration of remedies. The Cortes excerpt should be understood to mean that the petitioner therein could have assailed the administrative aspect via Rule 43 with the CA or the criminal aspect via Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, but did neither. Consolidation is an act of judicial discretion when several cases are already pending, as provided under Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily in Ombudsman proceedings. It does not affect the nature of the procedural recourse taken by the aggrieved party. After the Ombudsman renders a consolidated ruling, the aggrieved party is required to take the appropriate procedural remedies to separately assail the administrative and criminal components. A Rule 65 certiorari petition and a Rule 43 appeal are mutually exclusive remedies, different in purpose, manner of filing, subject matter, period of filing, and the need for a prior motion for reconsideration, as held in Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings. Subsequent cases — Joson vs. Ombudsman and Ornales vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon — consistently preserved the existing procedural approach regardless of consolidation.

• Remedies Against Ombudsman Rulings in Administrative Cases — For administrative charges, a delineation exists between appealable and unappealable Ombudsman rulings. Pursuant to Section 27 of RA 6770, rulings imposing public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month's salary are final and unappealable. By implication, rulings exonerating the respondent are likewise final and unappealable. The proper remedy to assail unappealable administrative rulings is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. Where the penalty imposed exceeds those thresholds, the decision is appealable via a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA.

• Remedies Against Ombudsman Rulings in Criminal Cases — The remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause in criminal or non-administrative cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court, not the CA. This was established through a line of cases beginning with Fabian vs. Desierto, clarified in Kuizon vs. Desierto, Golangco vs. Fung, Tirol, Jr. vs. Del Rosario, and definitively settled in Estrada vs. Desierto.

• Consolidation Does Not Alter Procedural Remedies — The fact that the Ombudsman renders a consolidated ruling on administrative and criminal charges does not alter the nature of the prescribed remedy corresponding to each aspect. Consolidation is a matter of judicial discretion post-filing and does not affect the procedural recourse available to the aggrieved party, who must separately assail the administrative and criminal components through their respective proper remedies.

• Mutual Exclusivity of Certiorari and Appeal — The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 and appeal under Rule 43 are mutually exclusive remedies, different in purpose, manner of filing, subject matter, period of filing, and the need for a prior motion for reconsideration, as held in Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings.

• "The fact that the Ombudsman had rendered a consolidated ruling does not - as it should not - alter the nature of the prescribed remedy corresponding to the aspect of the Ombudsman ruling being assailed." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi that consolidation of administrative and criminal charges by the Ombudsman does not merge or modify the distinct procedural remedies available for each aspect.

• "the remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or non-administrative cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals" — This quotation, drawn from the Court's discussion of Gatchalian vs. Office of the Ombudsman and its antecedents, states the canonical formulation of the rule on the proper forum for assailing the Ombudsman's criminal rulings.

• "Clearly, a Rule 65 certiorari petition (which is the proper remedy to assail the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman ruling; or the administrative aspect of an unappealable Ombudsman ruling) is clearly different from a Rule 43 appeal (which is the proper remedy to assail the administrative aspect of an appealable ruling)." — This passage crystallizes the distinction between the two remedies and their respective scopes, reinforcing that they cannot be interchanged even when the Ombudsman issues a consolidated ruling.

• Fabian vs. Desierto — Foundational case holding Section 27 of RA 6770 unconstitutional for increasing the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence; directed that appeals from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases be taken to the CA under Rule 43. The Court relied on this as the starting point for distinguishing administrative from criminal remedies.

• Kuizon vs. Desierto — Clarified that Fabian was limited to administrative cases and that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over incidents of criminal actions from the Ombudsman. Followed as controlling precedent.

• Golangco vs. Fung — Voided a CA decision that directed the Ombudsman to withdraw an information already filed, holding that the CA's jurisdiction extends only to administrative disciplinary cases. Followed.

• Tirol, Jr. vs. Del Rosario — Held that the remedy for assailing Ombudsman orders in criminal or non-administrative cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, though it did not specify the proper forum. Followed as part of the doctrinal lineage.

• Estrada vs. Desierto — Definitively held that a Rule 65 petition questioning the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause — or the lack thereof — should be filed with the Supreme Court, not the CA. Followed as the controlling precedent on the proper forum.

• Cortes vs. Office of the Ombudsman — Cited by petitioner for the proposition that consolidated rulings allow alternative remedies. The Court distinguished and clarified this division ruling, holding that its statement should be understood to mean that the petitioner therein could have assailed the administrative aspect via Rule 43 with the CA or the criminal aspect via Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, but did neither.

• Gatchalian vs. Office of the Ombudsman — Recent case tracing the genesis of the procedural framework for assailing Ombudsman rulings, cited extensively for its comprehensive survey of the relevant jurisprudence.

• Joson vs. Ombudsman — Cited as a subsequent case preserving the existing procedural approach: the Court ruled on the criminal aspect via a Rule 65 petition filed with the Supreme Court, while the administrative aspect attained finality because the petitioner failed to file a petition for certiorari before the CA.

• Ornales vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon — Cited as another subsequent case where the CA dismissed a Rule 65 petition for lack of jurisdiction over the criminal aspect, which dismissal the Supreme Court affirmed.

• Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings — Cited for the doctrine that certiorari under Rule 65 and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies, different in purpose, manner of filing, subject matter, period of filing, and the need for a prior motion for reconsideration.

• Reyes, Jr. vs. Belisario — Cited for the proposition that Ombudsman rulings exonerating the respondent from administrative liability are, by implication, final and unappealable.

• Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman — Cited for the rule that when the aggrieved party is questioning the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause, the remedy is certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court.

• Section 27, Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Provides that any order, directive, or decision of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month's salary, shall be final and unappealable. Applied to establish the distinction between appealable and unappealable administrative rulings, with exoneration treated as implicitly final and unappealable.

• Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07 (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure), as amended by Administrative Order No. 17-03 — Provides that where the respondent is absolved of the charge, or where the penalty imposed is public censure, reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month's salary, the decision is final, executory, and unappealable; in all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the CA under Rule 43 within fifteen days. Applied to delineate the appealable from the unappealable administrative rulings.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the special civil action for certiorari. Applied as the proper remedy to assail (a) the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman's ruling, to be filed with the Supreme Court, and (b) the administrative aspect of an unappealable Ombudsman ruling, to be filed with the CA.

• Rule 43, Rules of Court — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies. Applied as the proper remedy to assail the administrative aspect of an appealable Ombudsman ruling, to be filed with the CA.

• Rule 31, Rules of Court — Governs consolidation of actions. Applied suppletorily to Ombudsman proceedings to explain that consolidation is a post-filing act of judicial discretion that does not affect the nature of the procedural recourse taken by the aggrieved party.

• Section 3, Rule V, Administrative Order No. 07 (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure) — Provides that in all matters not provided in the Ombudsman Rules, the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character. Applied to justify the suppletory application of Rule 31 on consolidation.

Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred. (Gaerlan, J. was designated additional member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020.)