G.R. No. 224399 - Eleazar vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Petitioners Eloisa M. Eleazar and Virgelio M. Eleazar filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) against respondents: PSI Lodovico M. Eleazar, Jr., PO2 Jomar B. Camat, PO2 Billy Joe M. Collado, PO3 Erwin E. Lopez, Barangay Captain Edgar M. Eleazar, and Barangay Kagawad Rogelio E. Lopez.
The complaint arose from an incident on June 19, 2011, in the residential compound of Rodrigo C. Eleazar in Laoac, Pangasinan. Rodrigo was Eloisa’s husband and Virgelio’s father.

Respondents, armed with long rifles, allegedly confronted Gener M. Eleazar (son of petitioners) at the compound. PSI Lodovico initiated a verbal argument with Gener.
Petitioners intervened to stop the argument and bring Gener inside the house. Rodrigo also tried to stop Gener from arguing with PSI Lodovico.
Barangay Captain Edgar Eleazar and Kagawad Lopez attacked Gener without provocation, physically assaulting him despite efforts by petitioner Virgelio to calm them.
While Eloisa was still at the scene, PSI Lodovico reportedly shot Rodrigo from behind. Rodrigo fell, and several gunshots were fired by respondents. Gener hid behind a tree but was subsequently shot in the chest at close range by PSI Lodovico.
Petitioner Virgelio witnessed the shooting from inside their residence.

The respondents claimed they responded to a report of indiscriminate firing by Gener and confronted him. Rodrigo allegedly sided with Gener, and after admonition from Barangay officials, Rodrigo and Gener reacted violently by firing at respondents, injuring Barangay Captain Eleazar, Kagawad Lopez, and PO3 Lopez.
An ensuing shoot-out led to the deaths of Rodrigo and Gener. Recovered at the scene were caliber .45 firearms with spent shells belonging to the fatalities.

The Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint in a Decision dated January 17, 2012, finding respondents’ evidence clear, convincing, and credible to rebut the charges.
The Ombudsman highlighted that:

Respondents responded to a legitimate report of indiscriminate firing;
Injuries sustained by respondents were consistent with respondents’ account;
The Provincial Prosecutor found the shooting justified by lawful exercise of duty.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman’s dismissal.
The CA, in a Decision dated May 28, 2015, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, stating:

The Ombudsman’s dismissal was final and executory;
Under Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules, decisions absolving respondents are unappealable;
The correct remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65;
The CA ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.

The CA denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 29, 2016.

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman’s dismissal of an administrative complaint absolving respondents.
What is the proper mode and forum for judicial review of the Ombudsman’s decisions in administrative disciplinary cases, particularly those dismissing complaints.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the certiorari petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.