FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA, RUBEN M. CONTI, FELIX P. MALTU, AND ENGR. ERNI G. BAGGAO, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND LAZARO G. JAVIER, JR., RESPONDENTS.

Villanueva versus Office of the Ombudsman

The Case

This is a petition filed by Filomena Villanueva, together with Ruben Conti, Felix Maltu, and Engineer Erni Baggao, against the Office of the Ombudsman and private respondent Lazaro Javier, Junior. The petitioners challenge the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause to indict them for violation of the anti-graft law, falsification, and estafa, arising from an alleged anomaly in the award of two refrigerated vehicles owned by the Cooperative Development Authority to two multi-purpose cooperatives in Ilagan, Isabela. The case matters because it fixes the correct remedy, and the correct court, for a person who wishes to challenge the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause in a criminal case — a point examiners test often, and one on which the petitioner here chose the wrong door.

Procedural History

Private respondent Lazaro Javier, Junior filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against the four petitioners. The Office of the Ombudsman then issued a Resolution dated May 17, 2010 recommending that the petitioners be indicted for one count of violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019, for falsification of public documents, and for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Filomena Villanueva filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon denied in an Order dated April 28, 2011. From these rulings, the petitioner went directly to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review under Rule 43. The Court dismissed that petition, holding that the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal under Rule 43.

Facts

On May 8, 2006, Lazaro Javier, Junior filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. He alleged an anomaly in the award of one Mitsubishi Canter Refrigerated Van to the KKK Multi-Purpose Cooperative Incorporated of Ilagan, Isabela, through its Chairman, Erni Baggao, and one Isuzu Forward Truck to the Santa Maria Multi-Purpose Cooperative, also of Ilagan, Isabela, through its Chairman, Felix Maltu. Both vehicles were owned and registered in the name of the Cooperative Development Authority.

Acting on the complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman issued its Resolution dated May 17, 2010, finding probable cause and recommending the indictment of the petitioners for violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019, for falsification of public documents under Article 171, Number 4 of the Revised Penal Code, and for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the same Code.

Filomena Villanueva moved for reconsideration on December 28, 2010. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon denied the motion in its Order dated April 28, 2011. Villanueva then came to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review under Rule 43, raising, among others, the lack of authority of the former Ombudsman to act on the case and the supposed nullity of the assailed orders.

Issues

• Whether or not a Petition for Review under Rule 43 is the proper remedy to challenge the Ombudsman's Resolution finding probable cause to indict an accused in a criminal case.
• Whether or not the petitioner's other contentions, including the alleged lack of authority of the former Ombudsman and the prior dismissal of a related complaint, may be considered given the wrong remedy chosen.

Applicable Provisions

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

Section 27 of Republic Act Number 6770 provides that orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are appealable to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

This provision is the starting point of the Court's analysis, because it speaks only of administrative cases and says nothing about the remedy from a finding of probable cause in a criminal case.

Article VI, Section 30 of the Constitution, which the Court invokes through its ruling in Fabian versus Desierto, provides:

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and consent.

This is why the Court struck down the appeal route in Section 27 as unconstitutional, and why appeals from the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed because the remedy was wrong. What was assailed was the Ombudsman's evaluation of the criminal aspect of the charge, and the remedy to challenge it is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed with the Supreme Court. The Court explained that Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act speaks only of administrative cases, and that in Fabian versus Desierto the Court declared that provision unconstitutional for expanding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction without its advice and consent. Hence, appeals from the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.

The Court then drew the critical distinction: the law is silent on the remedy of a party aggrieved by a finding of probable cause in a criminal or non-administrative case. The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, exercisable only in the manner prescribed by law, and no law grants that privilege against a criminal probable-cause finding. The Court nevertheless held that an aggrieved party is not without recourse:

However, an aggrieved party is not without recourse where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. An aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

On the second issue, because the petitioner chose the wrong remedy, the Court did not reach the merits of her other contentions, including the alleged lack of authority of the former Ombudsman and the prior dismissal of the related complaint. The petition was dismissed outright.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, orders, directives, and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, because Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, which routed them to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, was declared unconstitutional in Fabian versus Desierto. Second, no appeal lies from the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause in a criminal case, because the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and no statute grants it there. Third, the sole remedy against such a finding is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court, and only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The choice of remedy is jurisdictional in effect: the wrong mode means dismissal, and the merits are never reached.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Review under Rule 43, and the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause stood, with the petitioner left to the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 if she wished to pursue it.

Remember This

Memorize the line: probable cause findings of the Ombudsman in criminal cases are challenged only by certiorari under Rule 65 on grave abuse of discretion, never by appeal under Rule 43. Examiners use this case to test whether you know the difference between the administrative route, which is Rule 43 to the Court of Appeals, and the criminal route, which is Rule 65 to the Supreme Court.