Dagan vs.
Office of the Ombudsman
G.R. No. 184083. | November 19, 2013
DOCTRINE: The decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed
via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no
jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or
lack of jurisdiction.
FACTS: Petitioner is the owner of several racehorses that participated in horse races
at the Philippine Racing Club, Inc. and Manila Jockey Club, Inc., while respondents
were the former Chairman and Commissioners of the Philippine Racing Commission
(Philracom).
Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against
respondents for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; malversation; violation
of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public
Officials and Employees; falsification of public document; dishonesty and grave
misconduct. On 30 September 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman’s Preliminary
Investigation and Administrative Adjudication Bureau rendered a Decision absolving
respondents of charges of grave misconduct, oppression, dishonesty, serious
irregularities and violation of laws; the OMB disregarded the charge of neglect in
implementing the law on drug testing because petitioner failed to show that it was
respondents’ principal duty to implement such drug testing. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration/reinvestigation but on 25 November 2005, the Office of the
Ombudsman denied the motion for lack of merit.7
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On 28 April 2008, the appellate court
issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for failure of petitioner to avail of the correct
mode of appeal. CitingFabian v. Hon. Desierto,8 the appellate court ruled that since the
assailed issuances of the Ombudsman are administrative in nature, the proper remedy
is through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner sought the reconsideration of the Resolution but it was denied on 6 August
2008. Thus, the present recourse. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in
dismissing his petition for certiorari. He contends that the Fabian case applies only to
a situation where the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman is that of conviction
ISSUE: W/N the decision of the ombudsman may be reviewed via Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court is applicable in the case, YES
RULING:
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 or otherwise known as “The Ombudsman Act
of 1989,” provides:
SEC. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions.—(1) All provisionary orders
of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory.
A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of the Office
of the Ombudsman must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of written
notice and shall be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
(1) New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the
order, directive or decision;
(2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to
the interest of the movant. The motion for reconsideration shall be
resolved within three (3) days from filing: provided, that only one motion
for reconsideration shall be entertained.
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 (1) month’s salary shall be final and unappealable.
xxxx
The above rules may be amended or modified by the Office of the
Ombudsman as the interest of justice may require. (Emphasis supplied).
The above-quoted provision logically implies that where the respondent is absolved of
the charge, the decision shall be final and unappealable. Although the provision does
not mention absolution, it can be inferred that since decisions imposing light penalties
are final and unappealable, with greater reason should decisions absolving the
respondent of the charge be final and unappealable.
This inference is validated by Section 7,12 Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07,
series of 1990 (otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman), to wit:
SEC. 7. Finality of decision.—Where the respondent is absolved of the
charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure
or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to
one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other
cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from
receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or
petition for certiorari shall have been filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of
RA 6770. (Emphasis theirs).
It was thus clarified that there are two instances where a decision, resolution or
order of the Ombudsman arising from an administrative case becomes final and
unappealable: (1) where the respondent is absolved of the charge; and (2) in case of
conviction, where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of
not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary. 13
In the instant case, the respondents were absolved of the charges against them by
the Office of the Ombudsman. Such decision is final and unappealable. In Republic v.
Francisco, 510 SCRA 377 (2006), we ruled that decisions of administrative or quasi-
administrative agencies which are declared by law final and unappealable are subject
to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of
discretion, fraud or error of law. When such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the
Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings. Thus, the decision of the
Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed via petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint,
or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.