The Supreme Court clarified that when the Ombudsman exonerates a respondent in an administrative case, the complainant’s proper recourse is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This ensures that the complainant is not left without a remedy to question the Ombudsman’s ruling, particularly when grave abuse of discretion is alleged. The ruling reinforces the availability of judicial review to check potential abuses of power by government instrumentalities, even in cases where statutes appear to limit appeal rights.

Navigating Justice: When Can You Question an Ombudsman’s Decision?

This case stems from a vehicular accident involving Maria Nympha Mandagan and Rufino Dela Cruz, an employee of the Local Government Unit (LGU) of San Juan City. Mandagan filed an administrative complaint against Dela Cruz and Ding Villareal, another LGU employee, alleging Grave Misconduct, Gross Negligence, and Serious Dishonesty, relating to the accident and subsequent handling of the matter. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, leading Mandagan to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was then dismissed on the ground that the proper remedy was a petition for review. The central legal question is whether the CA erred in dismissing Mandagan’s petition, specifically questioning the appropriate remedy for assailing an Ombudsman decision that exonerates a respondent in an administrative case.

The resolution of this issue hinges on the interpretation of Republic Act No. 6770, also known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989,” and Administrative Order No. 07 (AO 07). Section 27 of R.A. 6770 states that the findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Furthermore, any order imposing a penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month’s salary is considered final and unappealable. This provision is mirrored in Section 7, Rule III of AO 07, which explicitly states that when a respondent is absolved of the charge, the decision is final, executory, and unappealable.

However, the apparent finality of these decisions does not leave an aggrieved party without recourse. The Supreme Court, in Reyes, Jr. v. Belisario, clarified that even when the Ombudsman’s ruling is deemed “final and unappealable,” the remedy of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court remains available. This remedy is grounded in the Constitution, which empowers courts to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

The clear import of Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules is to deny the complainant in an administrative complaint the right to appeal where the Ombudsman has exonerated the respondent of the administrative charge, as in this case. The complainant, therefore, is not entitled to any corrective recourse, whether by motion for reconsideration in the Office of the Ombudsman, or by appeal to the courts, to effect a reversal of the exoneration. Only the respondent is granted the right to appeal but only in case he is found liable and the penalty imposed is higher than public censure, reprimand, one-month suspension or a fine equivalent to one month salary.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a statutory right to appeal does not equate to the absence of any remedy whatsoever. The Court reiterated that the power of judicial review, exercised through a petition for certiorari, is a fundamental check on government action, ensuring that tribunals act within their jurisdiction and do not commit grave abuse of discretion. In this context, “grave abuse of discretion” implies an act that is capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic, such that it is tantamount to a lack of jurisdiction.

In the present case, because the Ombudsman’s ruling exonerated Dela Cruz and Villareal from administrative liability, Mandagan correctly availed herself of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. This was the appropriate avenue to challenge the Ombudsman’s ruling on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The CA, therefore, erred in dismissing the petition on the technicality that Mandagan should have filed a Rule 43 petition for review. The Supreme Court, recognizing that the dismissal was based on a procedural misstep, remanded the case to the CA for a resolution on the merits.

This ruling highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of administrative procedure and the available remedies when challenging decisions of quasi-judicial bodies like the Ombudsman. It underscores that while certain decisions may be deemed final and unappealable in the traditional sense, the power of judicial review remains a vital safeguard against potential abuses of discretion. The decision serves as a reminder to legal practitioners and litigants alike to carefully assess the nature of the ruling being challenged and to select the appropriate remedy to ensure that their grievances are properly addressed by the courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision also carries practical implications for individuals who file administrative complaints with the Ombudsman. It clarifies that if the Ombudsman exonerates the respondent, the complainant cannot appeal the decision through the typical channels. Instead, the complainant’s recourse is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion. This remedy is not an appeal on the merits of the case but a challenge to the process and the legal basis of the Ombudsman’s decision.

The standard for proving grave abuse of discretion is high. It requires demonstrating that the Ombudsman acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner. Therefore, a complainant seeking to avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari must present a strong case that the Ombudsman’s decision was not based on a reasoned consideration of the facts and the law but rather on an abuse of power. The availability of certiorari provides a check on the Ombudsman’s power, ensuring that decisions are not made arbitrarily or in violation of fundamental rights.

In summary, the Mandagan v. Dela Cruz case reinforces the principle that the remedy of certiorari remains available to challenge Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases where the respondent is exonerated. This remedy serves as a vital safeguard against potential abuses of discretion by government instrumentalities, ensuring that justice is served even in situations where traditional appeal rights are limited.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Maria Nympha Mandagan’s petition for certiorari, which challenged the Ombudsman’s decision to exonerate Rufino Dela Cruz and Ding Villareal in an administrative case. Specifically, it concerned the correct remedy to assail an Ombudsman decision that absolves a respondent of administrative charges.
What is a petition for certiorari?	A petition for certiorari is a legal remedy used to question the decisions or actions of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, alleging that they acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
When is a petition for certiorari the appropriate remedy?	A petition for certiorari is appropriate when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is typically used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, rather than errors of judgment.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
What did the Ombudsman decide in this case?	The Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint filed by Maria Nympha Mandagan against Rufino Dela Cruz and Ding Villareal for lack of factual and legal bases. The Ombudsman found that the allegations of misconduct, negligence, and dishonesty were not supported by the evidence presented.
Why did the Court of Appeals dismiss Mandagan’s petition?	The Court of Appeals dismissed Mandagan’s petition for certiorari on the ground that she availed herself of the wrong remedy. The CA believed that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Mandagan’s petition for certiorari. The Court held that when the Ombudsman exonerates a respondent in an administrative case, the complainant’s proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 43.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling clarifies the appropriate remedy for challenging Ombudsman decisions that exonerate respondents in administrative cases. It ensures that complainants are not left without recourse to question potentially erroneous or abusive decisions by the Ombudsman.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mandagan v. Dela Cruz provides valuable guidance on the remedies available to challenge decisions of the Ombudsman. It underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of administrative procedure and the significance of the remedy of certiorari in safeguarding against potential abuses of discretion by government instrumentalities. This ruling ensures that justice is served even in situations where traditional appeal rights are limited, reinforcing the accountability of public officials and the protection of individual rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Maria Nympha Mandagan, Petitioner, v. Rufino Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 228267, October 08, 2018