 Dismissed the administrative complaint against Bernante because it does
not matter how he utilizes his leave since it is not a requirement that his
Enemecio v. Ombudsman GR No. 146731
January 13, 2004 Carpio, J.
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Review of Decisions of Lopez, C.
Ombudsman
SUMMARY: Enemecio filed two cases against Bernante 1) administrative – for
gross misconduct, falsification of documents, etc. and 2) criminal – falsification of
public documents. Ombudsman dismissed both cases. Enemecio filed SCA for
certiorari (R65) before CA, assailing the dismissal of the criminal complaint. CA
dismissed ruling that the proper remedy should have been petition for review under
Rule 43 (not R65). SC held that appeals from the Ombudsman of administrative
cases must be brought before CA under R43. If the decision of Ombudsman is
tainted with GADALEJ, the proper remedy is Rule 65 filed before SC not CA.
DOCTRINE:. CA has appellate jurisdiction to review Ombudsman decisions for
administrative disciplinary cases through petition for review under R43. SC has
power to review Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases under R65.
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS:
 PET Augustina Enemecio is a utility worker in Cebu State College. RESP
Servando Bernante is an Assistant Professor at the same college.
 Enemecio filed an administrative complaint against Bernante for gross
misconduct, falsification of public documents, malversation, dishonesty and
defamation before the office of the Executive Dean.
 Dean endorsed the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman for the
Visayas
 Enemecio also filed a criminal complaint against Bernante for falsification
of public documents.
 Ombudsman jointly tried the admin and crim cases.
 Enemecio alleged that:
o Bernante spray painted obscene words against her on the campus
walls; and shouted defamatory words at her
o That Bernante made it appear on his leave application that he
was on forced leave aka he falsified public documents (but in
truth he was serving a 20-day prison term for slight phys
injuries) and that he received salary during his leave.
 Bernante did not deny that he was in prison but that he received salary
because his leave application was approved.
OMBUDSMAN:
Lopez, Catherine Nicole
reason be stated in the application.
 Re: spray painting – insufficient evidence to prove that Bernante was
responsible since there were no witnesses.
 Re: defamatory words – not in relation to his official functions so
conviction by final judgment is a condition precedent for his suspension
(Festijo v. Crisologo)
 Dismissed the criminal complaint finding no probable cause to indict
Bernante for falsification of public documents.
o Since there is no regulation or law against utilization of leave
credits for anything other than recreation (like serving a prison
term), there was no misrepresentation.
 Denied Enemecio’s MR
Enemecio filed special civil action for certiorari (R65) before CA, assailing
Ombudsman’s resolutions, which dismissed the criminal complaint and denied the
MR.
CA: Applied the ruling Fabian v. Desierto1 and dismissed the petition for being filed
out of time and that the proper remedy should have been petition for review
under R43 not a petition for certiorari under R65.
ENEMECIO’s ARGUMENTS (MR from CA decision):
 CA should not have applied Fabian ruling because the ruling only declared
void Sec 27 of RA 6770 and Sec. 7, Rule III of AO 7 insofar as they
provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the
Ombudsman to SC.
 Other provisions of RA 6770 and AO 7, including the final and
unappealable character of orders, resolutions and decisions exonerating
respondent from criminal liability still stand.
 Rule 65 is the proper remedy because the absolution of Bernante from the
administrative complaint is final and unappealable thus there is no other
plain, speedy, adequate remedy.
CA denied MR:
 Appeals in administrative disciplinary cases must be brought by petition for
review under R43 from Ombudsman to CA
o Under R43, the petition must be filed within 15 days from notice
of assailed final order
1
SC held that Sec 27 of RA 6770 void, which authorized appeals from Ombudsman
decisions to SC.
Page 1 of 2
 o Order received on March 22, 2000; Last day to file on April 6, offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated;
2000; Enemecio filed petition of May 8, 2000 (out of time) (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the
 Enemecio’s allegation that there is no plain, speedy, adequate remedy is perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful
false. Remedy should have been Petition for Review under Rule 43. intent to injure a third person
 Fabian ruling does not apply in Enemecio’s petition of assailing the  However, there is no law imposing on Bernante the obligation to disclose
dismissal of the criminal complaint. where he would spend his leave credits; hence no misrepresentation.
o What Fabian declared void was the Sec 27 of RA 6770 which PETITION DENIED.
authorized appeals from Ombudsman to SC.= for administrative
complaints.
o Fabian ruling declared that administrative complaints must go
through CA following Rule 43.
 Power to review decisions of Ombudsman in criminal cases is retained
by SC (Sec 14, RA 6770); thus CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: W/N Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before CA is the proper remedy to
question dismissal of criminal complaint? NO.

HELD:
 Enemecio filed a Petition for certiorari under R65 before CA questioning
Ombudsman’s resolution dismissing the criminal case
o CA then said that Fabian ruling does not apply because it only
applies to administrative cases.
o In the present petition for review, Enemecio is claiming that what
was involved in the Petition for certiorari was the administrative
not the criminal
o This is a complete turnabout and Enemecio’s counsel should be
admonished for trying to mislead the Court.
 EVEN IF Enemecio questioned the dismissal of the administrative case
(instead of the crim case) action would still fail
o Appeals from the Ombudsman of administrative cases must be
brought before CA under R43
o The only provision affected by the Fabian ruling is the designation
of CA as the proper forum and of Rule 43 as the proper mode of
appeal. All other matters in Sec. 27 of RA 6770, including the
finality or non-finality of decisions of the Ombudsman, remain
valid
o If the decision of Ombudsman is tainted with GADALEJ, the
proper remedy is Rule 65 filed before SC not CA.

SUBSTANTIVE PART:
 Art. 171, par 4 of RPC enumerates the elements of falsification of public
documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: (a) the offender
makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the
Lopez, Catherine Nicole Page 2 of 2