Facts:
Teresita G. Fabian, petitioner, filed an administrative complaint on July 24, 1995 against private respondent
Nestor V. Agustin, then Assistant Regional Director, Region IV-A, Department of Public Works and Highways, alleging that during an extramarital and business relationship he had favored PROMAT Construction Development Corporation, of which petitioner was president and major stockholder, with public works contracts and had thereafter harassed and threatened petitioner when she sought to end the relationship. The complaint invoked violations of
Section 19, Republic Act No. 6770 and
Section 36, Presidential Decree No. 807 and sought dismissal and preventive suspension. On January 31, 1996, Graft Investigator Eduardo R. Benitez issued a resolution finding private respondent guilty of grave misconduct and ordering dismissal; that resolution received the approval of Director Napoleon Baldrias and Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera. The Ombudsman, however, by Order dated February 26, 1996 modified the disposition to a finding of misconduct and imposed suspension without pay for one year. After private respondent moved for reconsideration and the Ombudsman inhibited himself because of a relationship between the latter and private respondent’s new counsel, the case was reassigned to Deputy Ombudsman
Jesus F. Guerrero, who, by the challenged Joint Order dated June 18, 1997, granted the motion for reconsideration and exonerated private respondent. Petitioner thereupon sought review in the Supreme Court by a petition styled as an appeal by certiorari under
Rule 45 and alternatively invoked
Rule 65, contesting the validity of
Section 27, R.A. No. 6770 in relation to
Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) and seeking annulment of the Joint Order.
Issues:
Does
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 validly authorize appeals by certiorari under
Rule 45 to the Supreme Court from administrative disciplinary decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman despite the prohibition of
Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution against laws increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent? Is
Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, which declares decisions absolving respondents final and unappealable, consistent with applicable law? If
Section 27 is invalid, to which tribunal should appeals from administrative disciplinary decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman be directed under the existing Rules of Court?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: