G.R. No. 184083 - Dagan vs. Office of the Ombudsman

William C. Dagan, owner of several racehorses that participated in races at the Philippine Racing Club, Inc. and Manila Jockey Club, Inc.

Former Chairman and Commissioners of the Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom), including Jaime A. Dilag, Eduardo B. Jose, Vergel A. Cruz, Eduardo C. Domingo, Rogelio A. Tandiama, Reynaldo G. Fernando, and Romeo F. Buencamino.

Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit accusing the respondents of multiple violations:

Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
Malversation;
Violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees);
Falsification of public documents; and
Dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Overpayment by Philracom amounting to ₱28,624,235.00 due to failure to deduct the horse owner’s prize of the day as per the agreement with race clubs;
Unlawful exclusion (scratching out) of petitioner’s horses from races by Philracom;
Unauthorized purchase of medicines for personal use by respondent Dilag totaling ₱13,346.00;
Disbursement of funds as reimbursement for alleged promotional expenses without clear public bidding or proper approval;
Ownership by respondent Jose of multiple racehorses, contravening Philracom rules;
Entering into a contract for the purchase of employees’ uniforms amounting to ₱400,000.00 deducting from their uniform allowance without consent;
Purchase of equipment and medicines purportedly for the implementation of a Coggins Test on racehorses, with costs reportedly exceeding ₱200,000.00 per release; and
Failure by the respondents to implement the compulsory drug testing for racehorses as required by law.

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication:

On 30 September 2005, the office rendered a decision absolving respondents of charges including grave misconduct, oppression, dishonesty, and serious irregularities.
For each charge:

The overpayment issue was resolved by noting that under the Memorandum of Agreement, Philracom was obligated to reimburse prize money without necessitating the deduction of the horse owner’s prize of the day;
The charge on improper hiring of a media consultant was dismissed due to lack of documentary evidence;
The removal of petitioner’s racehorses was justified as a penalty for failing to submit them for a Coggins Test;
Charges involving unauthorized promotional expenses, malversation, and inappropriate purchases were either deemed premature or explained as private transactions;
The conflict of interest issue was dismissed on the ground that respondent Jose served in an honorary capacity, thus not triggering divestment requirements; and
The alleged neglect to implement drug testing was dismissed as unsubstantiated by the evidence provided.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed but subsequently denied on 25 November 2005.
The petitioner elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals:

On 28 April 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing the petition for not availing the correct mode of appeal.
A subsequent petition for reconsideration of that resolution was denied on 6 August 2008.

Petitioner contended that, under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, the exonerative decision is final, executory, and unappealable, leaving certiorari under Rule 65 as the only recourse.
The petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in its dismissal based on procedural technicalities and misapplication of the Fabian doctrine, citing Barata v. Abalos, Jr.
Respondents and the Office of the Solicitor General maintained that:

The decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman were final and unappealable; and
The proper remedy should have been sought under the prescribed rules, noting that administrative decisions are subject to strict limitations on judicial review.

Whether the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman exonerating the respondents is final, executory, and unappealable under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770.

Whether such finality precludes any appeal, including a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

The appropriate forum and jurisdiction for a petition for certiorari when challenging administrative decisions that are declared final.

Whether the petitioner properly filed the petition with the Court of Appeals or should have done so with the Supreme Court.

Whether the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, especially regarding the administrative charges (overpayment, unauthorized disbursements, conflict of interest, removal of racehorses, and non-implementation of drug testing), warrant judicial intervention.

Whether the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner’s rehashed arguments to refute the findings of fact and legal interpretations justify a reversal or modification of the Ombudsman's decision.