Sherwin Gatchalian v.

Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No. 229288 1 August 2018

FACTS:
Sherwin Gatchalian (Gatchalian) is a shareholder of Express Saving Bank,
Inc (ESBI). He sold his ESBI shares to Local Water Utility Administration
(LWUA), a government-owned and controlled corporation. It was discovered
that ESBI’s finances were precarious, but Gatchalian still profited from the
sale.
In a Joint Resolution, he was charged with violation of Republic Act 3019.
He was also indicted for malversation of public funds. Gatchalian filed a
motion for reconsideration regarding the charges against him. The
Ombusdman dismissed his motion.
Gatchalian filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the Court of
Appeals, as per the ruling in Morales v. Court of Appeals. He asked that the
Joint Resolution be set aside since it was issued due to grave abuse of
discretion: the Ombudsman failed to specify acts that would “clearly
manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a
crime.”
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The
Ombudsman’s decision or resolution in criminal cases is unappealable. They
can be challenged through a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) filed before the
Supreme Court. Gatchalian moved for reconsideration but his motion was
denied.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the petition (Did
Gatchalian avail of the correct remedy in filing Certiorari under Rule 65
before the Court of Appeals?)
RULING:
No, the Court of Appeals cannot review the Ombudsman’s
resolutions or decisions in criminal cases.
The Supreme Court ruled in several cases that the Court of Appeals can
review the Ombudsman’s decision in administrative cases, but not criminal
cases. Only the Supreme Court can review the decisions or resolutions of the
Ombudsman in criminal cases.
Morales is a wrong basis for a remedy. It involved a preventive suspension
order coming from an administrative case.
Further, the Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an
aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases. The aggrieved party in an administrative
case may appeal to the Court of Appeals. However, an appeal to the Court of
Appeals was not granted to an aggrieved party in a criminal case. The
“aggrieved party” included those who are indicted after probable cause was
found.
Here, the Joint Resolution indicts Gatchalian on criminal charges, not
administrative. Thus, asking the Court of Appeals to review the
Ombudsman’s decision is not the right remedy.

LONGER RULING:
The Morales ruling should be understood in its proper context, i.e., that what
was assailed therein was the preventive suspension order arising from an
administrative case filed against a public official.
Kuizon and the subsequent case of Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the
Ombudsman (Visayas) drove home the point that the remedy of
aggrieved parties from resolutions of the Office of the
Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or non-
administrative cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion,
is to file an original action for certiorari with this Court and not
with the Court of Appeals. In cases when the aggrieved party is questioning
the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause, as in this
case, there is likewise the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with
this Court and not with the Court of Appeals.
In Kuizon v. Desierto and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman, we
held that this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari questioning
resolutions or orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. For
administrative cases, however, we declared that the petition
should be filed with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts. The Dagan ruling homogenized the procedural rule
with respect to administrative cases falling within the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman - first enunciated in Fabian v. Desierto - that is, all remedies
involving the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases, whether by an appeal under Rule 43 or a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, must be filed with the Court of Appeals.
In Golangco vs. Fung, the Court voided a decision of the CA which directed
the Ombudsman to withdraw an Information already filed by it with a
Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court in Golangco reasoned that "[t]he
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."
We have held that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may
be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the
provisions of law. Hence, there must be a law expressly granting such
privilege. The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an
aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases. As we ruled in Fabian, the aggrieved party
is given the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Such right of appeal is
not granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman
in criminal cases, like finding probable cause to indict accused persons.
However, an aggrieved party is not without recourse where the finding of the
Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse
of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An aggrieved party
may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.