Ornales vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon

G.R. No. 214312, September 05, 2018

Leonen, J

Chief Executive Officer of Amellar Solutions, wrote to then Mayor Raul Bendaña of Lemery, Batangas with an offer to automate various municipal operations. The Sangguniang Bayan issued a Resolution authorizing Bendaña to enter into an P8,250,000.00 loan agreement with Land Bank of the Philippines for the computerization of the municipality's revenue collection system.

Respondents filed a complaint affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman. They accused members of the Sangguniang Bayan of violating Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act, when they authorized Bendaña to enter into a direct contract with Amellar Solutions.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution, indicting the Sangguniang Bayan members for violating Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019. It also recommended that they be found guilty of grave misconduct. Ornales, Eguia, Vergara, De Castro, and Magnaye assailed the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman’s Resolution with a Petition for Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals averred that it only had jurisdiction over issuances of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases and that jurisdiction over the Office of the Ombudsman's issuances in criminal cases lay with the Supreme Court.

Question: Did the CA have jurisdiction over issuances of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases and criminal cases?

No.

As a quasi-judicial agency, decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases may only be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a Rule 43 petition.

This Court has repeatedly pronounced that the Office of the Ombudsman's orders and decisions in criminal cases may be elevated to this Court in a Rule 65 petition, while its orders and decisions in administrative disciplinary cases may be raised on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in denying the petition questioning public respondent's finding of probable cause for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, petitioners' failure to avail of the correct procedure with respect to the criminal case renders public respondent's decision final.