ZENAIDA F. LANTING, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, ANTI-GRAFT INVESTIGATOR OSCAR RAMOS, MAYOR LITO ATIENZA, EMMANUEL SISON, VIRGILIO FORBES, CHARITO RUMBO, DIRECTOR ERLIND…

Lanting versus Ombudsman

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Zenaida Lanting against the Honorable Ombudsman and the city officials she had accused before that office. Lanting had filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging several Manila officials with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and related offenses. When the Ombudsman dismissed her complaint, she went to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her petition for lack of jurisdiction. The case matters because it fixes the dividing line between two review routes: administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals, but criminal cases resolved by the Ombudsman go only to the Supreme Court, and only on a pure question of law.

Procedural History

Lanting filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. Graft Investigator Oscar Ramos issued a Resolution recommending dismissal, which was approved by the Ombudsman. Lanting moved for reconsideration, and the Ombudsman denied the motion for lack of merit.

Lanting then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the assailed Ombudsman Resolution, invoking the second paragraph of Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act, and noting procedural defects as well. Lanting moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it, holding that only the Supreme Court is the appellate authority over Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases. Lanting then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Lanting was the Administrative Officer IV of the City Council of Manila. In May 1998 she filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging then Vice-Mayor Jose Atienza, now City Mayor, Emmanuel Sison, Secretary to the City Council, and Charito Rumbo, Human Resource Management Officer III, with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She alleged that these officials unlawfully appointed Ernesto Saw, Jr., a Chinese citizen working in Taiwan and the brother-in-law of Charito Rumbo, to the position of Researcher in the City Council.

In the same complaint, Lanting alleged that the respondents fraudulently effected the publication of a vacant position in violation of the law requiring regular publication of vacant positions. She also questioned several other appointments, including that of Percival Magalong as Utility I, and she denounced a Civil Service Commission director for employing her brother in her office. She characterized the respondents' acts as unlawful, odious, and despicable criminal activities, and prayed that the Ombudsman proceed with the preliminary investigation with dispatch.

The respondents filed a joint counter-affidavit denying the charges, averring that Ernesto Saw, Jr. is a Filipino citizen as shown by his birth certificate and Personnel Data Sheet. The graft investigator recommended dismissal of the complaint, and the Ombudsman approved that recommendation. Lanting's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her petition before the Court of Appeals and, ultimately, this recourse.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals grievously erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by invoking the second paragraph of Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act.
• Whether or not Lanting's complaint before the Ombudsman was an administrative complaint that would fall under the Fabian versus Desierto rule allowing review by the Court of Appeals.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides:

No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court on pure question of law.

This provision is the decisive text: it confines review of the Ombudsman's criminal findings to the Supreme Court and only on a pure question of law, which is why the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Lanting's complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman was for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It was not an administrative complaint. Nowhere in her complaint did she allege administrative offenses such as dishonesty or misconduct on the part of the respondents. Her own allegations described the respondents' actuations as willful, felonious, unlawful, odious, and despicable criminal activities, and in her pleadings she spoke of falsification of public documents. The complaint being criminal in nature, the Supreme Court has the sole authority to review the Ombudsman's Resolutions on a pure question of law, as expressly mandated by the second paragraph of Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act.

On the second issue, the Court distinguished its earlier ruling in Fabian versus Desierto. There, the Court held that only appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. That ruling was reiterated in Namuhe versus Ombudsman and in Barata versus Abalos, Jr. and Coronel versus Desierto. Because Lanting's case was criminal and not administrative, the Fabian route was unavailable to her, and jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under the second paragraph of Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act, no court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court on a pure question of law. Second, the exception carved out in Fabian versus Desierto covers only administrative disciplinary cases, which are appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Third, the characterization of the complaint controls the review route: if the complaint charges criminal offenses, review lies exclusively with the Supreme Court on a pure question of law; if it is an administrative disciplinary complaint, review lies with the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

The petition for review on certiorari was denied, with costs against Lanting, because the Court of Appeals correctly held that it had no jurisdiction over her criminal action.

Remember This

Memorize the line: criminal findings of the Ombudsman go only to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law, while administrative disciplinary cases go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Examiners use this case to test the Fabian versus Desierto distinction and the jurisdictional reach of Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act.