ROGER T. SANCHEZ, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND MARTHALINA B. PERALTA, RESPONDENTS.

Sanchez versus Office of the Ombudsman

The Case

This is Sanchez versus Office of the Ombudsman, a special civil action for certiorari brought by Roger T. Sanchez against the Office of the Ombudsman and Marthalina B. Peralta. In plain speech: a private complainant, aggrieved by the Ombudsman's reduction of the penalty imposed on an erring public officer, went straight to the Supreme Court by certiorari instead of appealing to the Court of Appeals. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two points every examinee must master: the correct remedy against decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, and the mutual exclusivity of appeal and certiorari.

Procedural History

The Office of the Ombudsman, in a Decision dated September 12, 2011, found Peralta, the Administrative Officer IV and designated Acting Sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission, guilty of Gross Misconduct and Neglect of Duty, and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service. On Peralta's motion for reconsideration, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order dated July 12, 2012, modifying the penalty and reducing dismissal to one year suspension.

Petitioner received the assailed Order on November 28, 2012, giving him until December 13, 2012 within which to file an appeal by petition for review. He did not appeal. Instead, he filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the petition outright as the improper remedy, and it is that dismissal we now study.

Facts

Marthalina B. Peralta held the position of Administrative Officer IV and was designated Acting Sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission. On complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman found her guilty of Gross Misconduct and Neglect of Duty and imposed dismissal from the service, directing the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission to implement the decision and report compliance.

Peralta moved for reconsideration. The Office of the Ombudsman granted the motion in part and modified its decision, reducing the penalty of dismissal to one year suspension.

Roger T. Sanchez, the party aggrieved, received the modifying Order on November 28, 2012. Rather than appeal to the Court of Appeals within the fifteen-day period, he filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Ombudsman gravely erred in reducing the penalty, that dismissal was the correct penalty given substantial evidence of gross misconduct and neglect of duty, and that the penalty was neither oppressive nor harsh but necessary to discipline erring government employees.

Issues

• Whether or not the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision or order of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative disciplinary case is an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
• Whether or not certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
• Whether or not any of the recognized exceptions to the rule on mutual exclusivity of appeal and certiorari exists in this case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 27 of Republic Act Number 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides:

Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month's salary shall be final and unappealable.

This fixes which Ombudsman rulings are final and unappealable, and by contrast confirms that a one-year suspension is appealable.

Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:

The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, xxx, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration xxx. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review.

This supplies the remedy and the fifteen-day period that the petitioner allowed to lapse.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the proper remedy depends on the nature of the case. If it is an administrative case, appeal lies to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43; if it is a criminal case, the remedy is an original petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65. Since the penalty imposed on Peralta was one year suspension, it is not covered by Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, and appeal under Rule 43 was the appropriate remedy.

On the second issue, the Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie since appeal under Rule 43 was adequate in the ordinary course of law. Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive; certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especially where the lapse was occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.

On the third issue, the Court acknowledged that exceptions exist, namely where public welfare and the advancement of public policy so dictate and the broader interest of justice so require; where the orders complained of were completely null and void; and where appeal was not the appropriate remedy. It found that none exists in this case to warrant allowance of certiorari.

Doctrine

First, the remedy against a decision or order of the Office of the Ombudsman is determined by the nature of the case: administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43, while criminal cases go to the Supreme Court by original petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Second, only the penalties enumerated in Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, namely public censure or reprimand and suspension of not more than one month's salary, are final and unappealable. Any heavier penalty, such as the one-year suspension here, is appealable.

Third, appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Certiorari will not be allowed to revive a lost appeal absent the recognized exceptions, and a party's own error in choosing the remedy is not one of them.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being the improper remedy, and the modified penalty of one year suspension imposed on Peralta stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: administrative decisions of the Ombudsman go up to the Court of Appeals by Rule 43 appeal, not to the Supreme Court by Rule 65 certiorari. Examiners use this case to test the final-and-unappealable penalties under Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act and the rule that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.