Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman case.

"xxx.

Court of Appeals' Jurisdiction Over the Criminal Aspect of the Case

Duyon was correct in his insistence that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman case. "The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases."32

In Kuizon v. Hon. Desierto33 this Court clarified:

The appellate court correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. In the Fabian case, we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It bears stressing that when we declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional, we categorically stated that said provision is involved only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. It cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal action. (Citations omitted.)

Bunag-Cabacungan's argument that the Court of Appeals now has appellate jurisdiction to review both the administrative and criminal aspects of orders and decisions of the Ombudsman because of the September 15, 2003 amendment to Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman deserves no merit at all.

Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, reads:

SEC. 7. Finality and execution 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, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. (Emphasis supplied.)

Bunag-Cabacungan's contention that the phrase "in all other cases" has removed the distinction between administrative and criminal cases of the Ombudsman is ludicrous. It must be stressed that the above-quoted Section 7 is provided under Rule III, which deals with the procedure in administrative cases. When Administrative Order No. 07 was amended by Administrative Order No. 17, Section 7 was retained in Rule III. It is another rule, Rule II, which provides for the procedure in criminal cases. Thus, the phrase "in all other cases" still refers to administrative cases, not criminal cases, where the sanctions imposed are different from those enumerated in Section 7.

It is important to note that the petition filed by Bunag-Cabacungan in CA-G.R. SP No. 86630 assailed only the "administrative decision" rendered against her by the OMB for Luzon. Quoted hereunder is the pertinent portion of her petition:

Believing that she is innocent of the administrative charges against her, your petitioner interposes this instant petition for the review of the administrative decision against her by the Office of the Ombudsman and the denial of her motion for reconsideration thereof.34 (Emphases ours.)

Moreover, the lone issue she submitted to the Court of Appeals for its consideration reads:

THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IN HOLDING COMPLAINANT GUILTY OF SIMPLE MISCONDUCT FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY ANOTHER [PERSON] IN THE ISSUANCE UNDER HER NAME OF EMANCIPATION PATENT No. A-347307.35

Furthermore, her arguments all throughout her petition for review before the Court of Appeals centered on how she should not have been found guilty of simple misconduct by the OMB for Luzon. Even the jurisprudence she cited in support of her arguments pertained to "misconduct in office." The same is true with Duyon's Comment,36 which focused on why Bunag-Cabacungan should be judged guilty of misconduct. Duyon actually argued for a more severe administrative punishment and prayed as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to MODIFY the Decision dated December 11, 2003 and the Joint Order dated August 27, 2004 imposing upon [Bunag-Cabacungan] and her husband the penalty of DISMISSAL from the government service for gross misconduct. Alternatively, should the Honorable Court find the punishment to be too harsh, it is humbly asked that they be punished for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service punishable to a maximum period of one (1) year suspension, without pay, in accordance with Executive Order No. 292.37

In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that in the case before us, the Court of Appeals went beyond its jurisdiction by touching on the criminal aspect of the Decision and Joint Order of the OMB for Luzon in OMB-L-A-03-0111-A and OMB-L-C-03-0125-A. As such, the Court of Appeals' ruling on the criminal aspect of the aforementioned cases is void.38

Xxx."


G.R. No. 172218
November 26, 2014

FELICIANO B. DUYON, substituted by his children: MAXIMA R. DUYON-ORSAME, EFREN R. DUYON, NOVILYN R. DUYON, ELIZABETH R. DUYON-SIBUMA, MODESTO R. DUYON, ERROL R. DUYON, and DIVINA R. DUYON-VINLUAN, Petitioners,
vs.
THE FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS and ELEONOR P. BUNAG-CABACUNGAN, Respondents.