Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* EN BANC.
471
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 1 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 2 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
472
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 3 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
473
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 4 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
474
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 5 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
475
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 6 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 7 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
476
the law. That right has been preserved. Only the procedure by
which the appeal is to be made or decided has been changed. The
rationale for this is that no litigant has a vested right in a
particular remedy, which may be changed by substitution without
impairing vested rights, hence he can have none in rules of
procedure which relate to the remedy.
REGALADO, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 8 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
477
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 9 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
478
II
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 10 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
479
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 11 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
480
xxx
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 month salary shall be final and
unappealable.
In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the
Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days
from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision
or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.
The above rules may be amended or modified by the Office of the
Ombudsman as the interest of justice may require.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 12 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
481
3
vs. Ombudsman, et4 al. and Young vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, et al. were original actions for certiorari5
under Rule 65. Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.
was commenced by a petition for review on certiorari
6
under
Rule 45. Then came Cruz, Jr. vs. People, et
7
al., Olivas vs.
Office of the Ombudsman,
8
et al., Olivarez
9
vs.
Sandiganbayan, et al., and Jao, et al. vs. Vasquez, which
were for certiorari, prohibition and/or
10
mandamus under
Rule 65. Alba vs. Nitorreda, et al. was initiated by a
pleading unlikely denominated as an „Appeal/Petition for
Certiorari and/or Prohibition,‰ with a prayer for ancillary
remedies, and ultimately followed by Constantino vs. Hon.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 13 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
11
Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, et al. which was a special
civil action for certiorari.
Considering, however, the view that this Court now
takes of the case at bar and the issues therein which will
shortly be explained, it refrains from preemptively
resolving the controverted points raised by the parties on
the nature and propriety of application of the writ of
certiorari when used as a mode of appeal or as the basis of
a special original action, and whether or not they may be
resorted to concurrently or alternatively, obvious though
the answers thereto appear to be. Besides, some seemingly
obiter statements in Yabut and Alba could bear
reexamination and clarification. Hence, we will merely
observe and lay down the rule at this juncture that Section
27 of Republic Act No. 6770 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
_______________
482
III
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 14 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
483
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 15 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 16 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
484
The Court observes that the present petition, from the very
allegations thereof, is „an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court from the ÂJoint Order (Re: Motion for
Reconsideration)Ê issued in OMB-Adm. Case No. 0-95-0411, entitled
ÂTeresita G. Fabian vs. Engr. Nestor V. Agustin, Asst. Regional
Director, Region IV-A, EDSA, Quezon City,Ê which absolved the
latter from the administrative charges for grave misconduct, among
others.‰
It is further averred therein that the present appeal to this Court
is allowed under Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1987 (R.A.
No. 6770) and, pursuant thereto, the Office of the Ombudsman
issued its Rules of Procedure, Section 7 whereof is assailed by
petitioner in this proceeding. It will be recalled that R.A. No. 6770
was enacted on November 17, 1989, with Section 27 thereof
pertinently providing that all administrative disciplinary cases,
orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may
be appealed to this Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
The Court notes, however, that neither the petition nor the two
comments thereon took into account or discussed the validity of the
aforestated Section 27 of R.A. No. 8770 in light of the provisions of
Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that „(n)o law shall
be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
consent.‰
The Court also invites the attention of the parties to its relevant
ruling in First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et
al. (G.R. No. 110571, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 519) and the
provisions of its former Circular No. 1-91 and Revised
Administrative Circular No. 1-95, as now substantially reproduced
in Rule 43 of the 1997 revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
In view of the fact that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is
invoked and involved in this case, and the foregoing legal
considerations appear to impugn the constitutionality and validity
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 17 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
485
IV
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 18 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
18 See Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 110207, July
11, 1996, 258 SCRA 651, and the cases and instances therein
enumerated.
486
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 19 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
487
20
quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to
the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review, under
the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was
precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform
21
rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.
It is suggested, however, that the provisions of Rule 43
should apply only to „ordinary‰ quasi-judicial agencies, but
not to the Office of the Ombudsman which is a „high
constitutional body.‰ We see no reason for this distinction
for, if hierarchical rank should be a criterion, that
proposition thereby disregards the fact that Rule 43 even
includes the Office of the President and the Civil Service
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 20 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
488
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 21 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
22 Board of Optometry, etc., et al., vs. Colet, G.R. No. 122241, July 30,
1996, 260 SCRA 88, and cases therein cited; Philippine Constitution
Association, et al. vs. Enriquez, etc., et al., G.R. No. 113105, August 19,
1994, 235 SCRA 506, and companion cases.
489
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 22 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 23 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
490
xxx
Thereafter, with reference to Section 22(4) which provides that
the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to
the Supreme Court, in reply to Senator ShahaniÊs query whether
the Supreme Court would agree to such provision in the light of
Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution which requires its advice
and concurrence in laws increasing its appellate jurisdiction,
Senator Angara informed that the Committee has not yet consulted
the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 24 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
491
VI
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 25 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
492
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 26 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
493
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 27 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
_______________
494
SO ORDERED.
··o0o··
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 28 of 29
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 1/16/18, 12:07
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd25b20fecd8ffc3003600fb002c009e/p/ATX596/?username=Guest Page 29 of 29