G.R. No. 229288 - Gatchalian vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Six criminal complaints were filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman (OMB-C-C-13-0212, OMB-C-C-13-0213, OMB-C-C-13-0214, OMB-C-C-13-0211) and private complainants (OMB-C-C-12-0031-A; OMB-C-C-10-0402-I) against several respondents, including Sherwin T. Gatchalian. Charges included:

Violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
Violation of Section X126.2(c)(1),(2),(3) of the MORB in relation to R.A. 7653 Sections 36 and 37

The complaints arose from the 2009 sale of Express Savings Bank, Inc. (ESBI) shares—of which Gatchalian was a stockholder—to the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). The Ombudsman alleged that ESBI’s poor finances made the proceeds to stockholders an unwarranted benefit and that there was a conspiracy to circumvent banking regulations and Monetary Board approval.

On March 16, 2015, a Special Panel issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict Gatchalian for one count each of R.A. 3019 §3(e), malversation, and MORB violation under R.A. 7653 §§36, 37.
Motions for reconsideration were filed and, on April 4, 2016, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order denying them.

Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (CA-G.R. SP No. 145852) to annul the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution and Joint Order for alleged grave abuse of discretion. He invoked Morales v. Court of Appeals to assert CA jurisdiction, and contended he had no personal involvement or probable cause.
On September 13, 2016, the Special 13th Division of the CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 13, 2017. Gatchalian then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a comment (Dec. 19, 2017) supporting CA’s lack of jurisdiction; Gatchalian replied (Apr. 4, 2018).
The case was submitted for decision en banc.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Gatchalian’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether Morales v. Court of Appeals extended CA jurisdiction to review Ombudsman resolutions in criminal cases.