Enemecio v. Ombudsman

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

Enemecio v. Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enemecio v. Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enemecio v. Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 Dismissed the administrative complaint against Bernante because it does

You might also like