Case Digest (G.R. No. 229288)
Facts:
Petitioner Sherwin T. Gatchalian filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals' Resolutions of September 13, 2016 and January 13, 2017 that dismissed his Rule 65 petition for certiorari challenging the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution (March 16, 2015) and Joint Order (April 4, 2016) finding probable cause in OMB-C-C-13-0212 arising from the 2009 sale of shares in Express Savings Bank, Inc.; the Ombudsman charged violations of R.A. 3019, malversation (Art. 217, RPC), and MORB provisions in relation to R.A. 7653.
The Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Gatchalian appealed to the Supreme Court contending that Morales v. Court of Appeals authorized filing a Rule 65 petition with the CA.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Gatchalian’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for lack of jurisdiction?
Ruling:
The petition was denied and the CA Resolutions dated September 13, 2016 and January 13, 2017 were affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ratio:
The Court reaffirmed the long-established distinction that the CA has jurisdiction only over Ombudsman orders in administrative disciplinary cases (reviewable under Rule 43), while petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging Ombudsman determinations of probable cause in criminal or non-administrative cases must be filed with the Supreme Court, as laid down in Fabian, Kuizon, Tirol, Jr., Estrada, and related precedents; Morales was read in context as limited to interlocutory administrative orders (preventive suspension) and did not abrogate the rule governing final criminal determinations by the Ombudsman.
Doctrine:
- The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases, to be reviewed under Rule 43.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)