Lawyerly

GR No. 197307

2014-02-26

FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VELASCO JR., J.

implementing RA 6770, insofar as they expanded the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its concurrence, violate Article VI, Sec. 30 of the 1987 Constitution.[25] We said so in the landmark Fabian v. Desierto:[26] WHEREFORE, Section 27 of [RA] 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), together with Section 7, Rule III of [A.O.]. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the [OMB]), and any other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid Act and insofar as they provide for

GR Nos. 187896-97

2013-06-10

AMANDO P. CORTES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

PEREZ, J.

This provision, insofar as it provided for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, had been declared unconstitutional by this Court as early as in the case of Fabian v. Desierto.[4] We ruled in Fabian that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43, in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.[5]

GR No. 154952

2012-07-16

HILARION F. DIMAGIBA v. JULITA ESPARTERO

PERALTA, J.

The CA found that the gratuity packages received by petitioners from HSDC constituted the prohibited additional or double compensation under the Constitution. It found no evidence to support the Ombudsman decision finding respondents guilty of the administrative charges as they acted accordingly as public officers. Anent the issue of the timeliness of the filing of the petition, the CA ruled that petitioners filed their appeal within the 15day period prescribed under Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, relying on the case of Fabian v. Desierto.[25] However, since there was no clear pronouncement that appeals of Ombudsman decision in administrative cases cannot be made under Section 4 of Rule 43, the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 10-day period provided under Section 27 of RA 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, would result to glaring injustice to respondents; and that dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon especially if it will result to injustice.

GR No. 154117

2009-10-02

ERNESTO FRANCISCO v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

To support their contention that Rule 43 applies to this case, private respondents rely on the Court's ruling in Fabian v. Desierto,[113] which provides: Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought through a petition for review on certiorari but only from judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final orders of 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 rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.

AM No. RTJ-08-2103

2009-02-23

EDNA S.V. OGKA BENITO v. RASAD G. BALINDONG

CORONA, J.

However, in Fabian v. Desierto,[19] we enunciated the rule that appeals from the decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA. Following our ruling in Fabian, the Ombudsman issued Administrative Order No. 17[20] amending Section 7, Rule III[21] of Administrative Order No. 07:[22]

GR NO. 157175

2007-06-21

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. ZENAIDA A. CABAIS

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in invoking our ruling in Fabian v. Desierto.[4]

GR NOS. 168830-31

2007-02-06

ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court, however, cannot and will not pass judgment on the administrative liability of petitioners. In the leading case of Fabian v. Desierto,[43] we ruled that appeals from decisions of the public respondent in administrative liability cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the administrative aspect of the present petition should be referred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.

GR NO. 169098

2006-10-12

MANUEL BAVIERA v. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN CLEARLY ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE INSTANT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019) ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.[18] However, on January 7, 2005, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that the proper remedy was to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, conformably with the ruling of this Court in Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman.[19] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting that his petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 was in accordance with the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto.[20] He insisted that the Office of the Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial agency of the government, and under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the CA has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. He asserted that the filing of his petition for certiorari with the CA conformed to the established judicial policy of hierarchy of courts as explained by this Court in People v. Cuaresma.[21]

GR NO. 166429

2006-02-01

REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON

TINGA, J.

Of course it is too late in the day to question the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 8974, an issue that was not raised in the petition. Still, this point was already addressed in the Decision, which noted that the determination of the appropriate standards for just compensation is a substantive matter well within the province of the legislature to fix.[3] As held in Fabian v. Desierto, if the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural,[4] and so the converse certainly holds that if the rule or provision creates a right, it should be properly appreciated as substantive in nature. Indubitably, a matter is substantive when it involves the creation of rights to be enjoyed by the owner of property to be expropriated. The right of the owner to receive just compensation prior to acquisition of possession by the State of the property is a proprietary right, appropriately classified as a substantive matter and, thus, within the sole province of the legislature to legislate on.

GR NO. 166429

2005-12-19

REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON

TINGA, J.

If a rule or statute creates a right or takes away a vested right, it is substantive. If it operates as a means of implementing an existing right, then it is procedural.[88]

GR NO. 141966

2005-06-30

ISRAEL G. PERALTA v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In a Resolution[8] issued by this Court on July 6, 1999, the instant case was referred to the CA pursuant to this Court's ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto.[9]

GR NO. 162403

2005-05-16

FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA v. ROMEO DICEN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

cases and a previous administrative conviction. The PDS is an official document; hence, the concealment of a previous charge, albeit dismissed, constituted dishonesty amounting to misconduct. However, the CA held that the judgment of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas was not immediately executory because the penalty of suspension for six months without pay is not among those listed under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman. As to the issue of jurisdiction, the CA affirmed its jurisdiction in the instant case on the strength of the case of Fabian v. Desierto[18] wherein it was stated that "[a]ppeals from judgments and final orders of 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 of Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies."

GR NO. 141426

2005-05-06

ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioner contends that her complaint before the Ombudsman was not limited to violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, but likewise includes "acts constituting ground for administrative complaint under Sec. 1, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 of the Ombudsman."[12] Thus, the Court of Appeals should have taken cognizance of her petition, applying this Court's ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto.[13]

GR NO. 141426

2005-05-06

ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Fabian vs. Desierto,[17] we held that only "appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 (of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)." We reiterated this ruling in Namuhe vs. Ombudsman[18] and recently in Barata vs. Abalos, Jr.[19] and Coronel vs. Aniano Desierto, as Ombudsman, and Pedro Sausal, Jr.[20]

GR No. 156160

2004-12-09

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner postulates that the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with this Court in original actions for certiorari concerning dispositions made by the Office of the Ombudsman of criminal cases that underwent preliminary investigation. In support thereof, petitioner argues that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), which was made the basis by the Court of Appeals in dismissing his petition, is unconstitutional as it allegedly provides for direct appeal to this Court in contravention of Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution which contains an exclusive list of cases falling under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Following the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto,[9] petitioner concludes that Section 14 has effectively increased the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its advice and concurrence in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution. Petitioner then went on to state that the proper recourse from an adverse decision of the Ombudsman in criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals pursuant to Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario[10] where we declared that a party aggrieved by a resolution of the Ombudsman in criminal cases may avail himself of such remedy. Petitioner contends that as the doctrine of hierarchy of courts precludes the immediate invocation of this Court's power of review, he correctly filed his petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 143092

2003-02-14

TERESITA G. FABIAN v. NESTOR V. AGUSTIN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Although it is improper for a married man to court another woman, "this Office is by no means prepared to hold that such act by itself constitutes the administrative offense of immorality." Aggrieved, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review[5] pursuant to Section 27 of RA 6770,[6] docketed as G.R. No. 129742. In its Decision dated September 16, 1998, this Court declared invalid Section 27 of RA 6770, together with Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), and any other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid act insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. This Court ruled that henceforth, appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Consequently, this Court referred and transferred petitioner's petition for review to the Court of Appeals for final disposition, with said petition to be considered pro hac vice as a petition for review under Rule 43.

GR No. 133715

2000-02-23

DOUGLAS R. VILLAVERT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

BELLOSILLO, J.

This petition for review was filed on 18 June 1998. Thereafter, on 16 September 1998 we promulgated Fabian v. Desierto[18] where the basis for the filing of this petition before this Court, i.e., Sec. 27, RA 6770,[19] insofar as it allows appeals to the Supreme Court in administrative disciplinary cases, was declared invalid, thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction.

	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
implementing RA 6770, insofar as they expanded the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its concurrence, violate Article VI, Sec. 30 of the 1987 Constitution.[25] We said so in the landmark Fabian v. Desierto:[26] WHEREFORE, Section 27 of [RA] 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), together with Section 7, Rule III of [A.O.]. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the [OMB]), and any other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid Act and insofar as they provide for
	GR Nos. 187896-97 2013-06-10	AMANDO P. CORTES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
This provision, insofar as it provided for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, had been declared unconstitutional by this Court as early as in the case of Fabian v. Desierto.[4] We ruled in Fabian that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43, in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.[5]
	GR No. 154952 2012-07-16	HILARION F. DIMAGIBA v. JULITA ESPARTERO PERALTA, J.
The CA found that the gratuity packages received by petitioners from HSDC constituted the prohibited additional or double compensation under the Constitution. It found no evidence to support the Ombudsman decision finding respondents guilty of the administrative charges as they acted accordingly as public officers. Anent the issue of the timeliness of the filing of the petition, the CA ruled that petitioners filed their appeal within the 15day period prescribed under Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, relying on the case of Fabian v. Desierto.[25] However, since there was no clear pronouncement that appeals of Ombudsman decision in administrative cases cannot be made under Section 4 of Rule 43, the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 10-day period provided under Section 27 of RA 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, would result to glaring injustice to respondents; and that dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon especially if it will result to injustice.
	GR No. 154117 2009-10-02	ERNESTO FRANCISCO v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To support their contention that Rule 43 applies to this case, private respondents rely on the Court's ruling in Fabian v. Desierto,[113] which provides: Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought through a petition for review on certiorari but only from judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final orders of 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 rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.
	AM No. RTJ-08-2103 2009-02-23	EDNA S.V. OGKA BENITO v. RASAD G. BALINDONG CORONA, J.
However, in Fabian v. Desierto,[19] we enunciated the rule that appeals from the decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA. Following our ruling in Fabian, the Ombudsman issued Administrative Order No. 17[20] amending Section 7, Rule III[21] of Administrative Order No. 07:[22]
	GR NO. 157175 2007-06-21	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. ZENAIDA A. CABAIS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in invoking our ruling in Fabian v. Desierto.[4]
	GR NOS. 168830-31 2007-02-06	ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court, however, cannot and will not pass judgment on the administrative liability of petitioners. In the leading case of Fabian v. Desierto,[43] we ruled that appeals from decisions of the public respondent in administrative liability cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the administrative aspect of the present petition should be referred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.
	GR NO. 169098 2006-10-12	MANUEL BAVIERA v. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA CALLEJO, SR., J.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN CLEARLY ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE INSTANT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019) ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.[18] However, on January 7, 2005, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that the proper remedy was to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, conformably with the ruling of this Court in Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman.[19] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting that his petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 was in accordance with the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto.[20] He insisted that the Office of the Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial agency of the government, and under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the CA has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. He asserted that the filing of his petition for certiorari with the CA conformed to the established judicial policy of hierarchy of courts as explained by this Court in People v. Cuaresma.[21]
	GR NO. 166429 2006-02-01	REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON TINGA, J.
Of course it is too late in the day to question the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 8974, an issue that was not raised in the petition. Still, this point was already addressed in the Decision, which noted that the determination of the appropriate standards for just compensation is a substantive matter well within the province of the legislature to fix.[3] As held in Fabian v. Desierto, if the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural,[4] and so the converse certainly holds that if the rule or provision creates a right, it should be properly appreciated as substantive in nature. Indubitably, a matter is substantive when it involves the creation of rights to be enjoyed by the owner of property to be expropriated. The right of the owner to receive just compensation prior to acquisition of possession by the State of the property is a proprietary right, appropriately classified as a substantive matter and, thus, within the sole province of the legislature to legislate on.
	GR NO. 166429 2005-12-19	REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON TINGA, J.
If a rule or statute creates a right or takes away a vested right, it is substantive. If it operates as a means of implementing an existing right, then it is procedural.[88]
	GR NO. 141966 2005-06-30	ISRAEL G. PERALTA v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In a Resolution[8] issued by this Court on July 6, 1999, the instant case was referred to the CA pursuant to this Court's ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto.[9]
	GR NO. 162403 2005-05-16	FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA v. ROMEO DICEN CALLEJO, SR., J.
cases and a previous administrative conviction. The PDS is an official document; hence, the concealment of a previous charge, albeit dismissed, constituted dishonesty amounting to misconduct. However, the CA held that the judgment of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas was not immediately executory because the penalty of suspension for six months without pay is not among those listed under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman. As to the issue of jurisdiction, the CA affirmed its jurisdiction in the instant case on the strength of the case of Fabian v. Desierto[18] wherein it was stated that "[a]ppeals from judgments and final orders of 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 of Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies."
	GR NO. 141426 2005-05-06	ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioner contends that her complaint before the Ombudsman was not limited to violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, but likewise includes "acts constituting ground for administrative complaint under Sec. 1, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 of the Ombudsman."[12] Thus, the Court of Appeals should have taken cognizance of her petition, applying this Court's ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto.[13]
	GR NO. 141426 2005-05-06	ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Fabian vs. Desierto,[17] we held that only "appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 (of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)." We reiterated this ruling in Namuhe vs. Ombudsman[18] and recently in Barata vs. Abalos, Jr.[19] and Coronel vs. Aniano Desierto, as Ombudsman, and Pedro Sausal, Jr.[20]
	GR No. 156160 2004-12-09	JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner postulates that the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with this Court in original actions for certiorari concerning dispositions made by the Office of the Ombudsman of criminal cases that underwent preliminary investigation. In support thereof, petitioner argues that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), which was made the basis by the Court of Appeals in dismissing his petition, is unconstitutional as it allegedly provides for direct appeal to this Court in contravention of Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution which contains an exclusive list of cases falling under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Following the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto,[9] petitioner concludes that Section 14 has effectively increased the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its advice and concurrence in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution. Petitioner then went on to state that the proper recourse from an adverse decision of the Ombudsman in criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals pursuant to Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario[10] where we declared that a party aggrieved by a resolution of the Ombudsman in criminal cases may avail himself of such remedy. Petitioner contends that as the doctrine of hierarchy of courts precludes the immediate invocation of this Court's power of review, he correctly filed his petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 143092 2003-02-14	TERESITA G. FABIAN v. NESTOR V. AGUSTIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Although it is improper for a married man to court another woman, "this Office is by no means prepared to hold that such act by itself constitutes the administrative offense of immorality." Aggrieved, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review[5] pursuant to Section 27 of RA 6770,[6] docketed as G.R. No. 129742. In its Decision dated September 16, 1998, this Court declared invalid Section 27 of RA 6770, together with Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), and any other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid act insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. This Court ruled that henceforth, appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Consequently, this Court referred and transferred petitioner's petition for review to the Court of Appeals for final disposition, with said petition to be considered pro hac vice as a petition for review under Rule 43.
	GR No. 133715 2000-02-23	DOUGLAS R. VILLAVERT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO BELLOSILLO, J.
This petition for review was filed on 18 June 1998. Thereafter, on 16 September 1998 we promulgated Fabian v. Desierto[18] where the basis for the filing of this petition before this Court, i.e., Sec. 27, RA 6770,[19] insofar as it allows appeals to the Supreme Court in administrative disciplinary cases, was declared invalid, thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction.

TERESITA G. FABIAN v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO