Case Summary (G.R. No. 182734)
Factual Background
The petitioner lodged a complaint on May 12, 1998, against the respondents, alleging illegal appointments, including that of Ernesto Saw, Jr., to a position within the City Council, claiming he was a foreign national and the brother-in-law of Charito Rumbo. Further allegations included fraudulent publication of job vacancies and improper appointments involving the respondents' relatives. Respondents countered these claims, asserting the legality of the appointments, citing that Ernesto Saw, Jr. was a Filipino citizen and thus eligible for the position.
Ombudsman Investigation and Initial Resolution
On April 8, 1999, Graft Investigator Oscar Ramos issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint, which was subsequently approved by then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto. The findings indicated a lack of sufficient evidence to support the allegations made by the petitioner, specifically noting that the nature of the consultancy position held by Ernesto Saw was not covered by civil service regulations. The resolution highlighted that jurisdiction over the alleged publication violation belonged to the Civil Service Commission, not the Ombudsman.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
Dissatisfied with the Ombudsman’s resolution, Lanting filed a motion for reconsideration on July 14, 1999, which was dismissed for lack of merit. She argued that the Ombudsman failed to address the issue of falsification of public documents and sought a re-investigation by a special prosecutor.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Following the Ombudsman’s denial, Lanting escalated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and mandamus. However, the appellate court dismissed her petition on September 9, 1999, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over decisions rendered by the Ombudsman unless founded purely on questions of law. The Court found procedural irregularities in Lanting’s filing, such as the absence of proof of service and failure to indicate the date of receipt of the Ombudsman's resolution.
Denial of Reconsideration by the Appellate Court
Lanting filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on January 6, 2000. The Court of Appeals maintained its stance, affirming the lack of jurisdiction to hear the case based on the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 6770, asserting that appeals regarding Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases could only be brought before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The central issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court concluded that Lanting's complaint was strictly criminal, focused primarily on the alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, thus placing jurisdiction solely with
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 182734)
Case Background
- Zenaida F. Lanting served as the Administrative Officer IV of the City Council of Manila.
- On May 12, 1998, she filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, designated as Case No. OMB-0-98-0965.
- The complaint charged several city officials, including then Vice-Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr. (now the Mayor), Emmanuel Sison, and Charito Rumbo, with violations of Republic Act No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- Allegations included unlawful appointments of Ernesto Saw, Jr. (a Chinese citizen working in Taiwan) to the position of Researcher, and fraudulent publication of a vacant position (Administrative Officer V) in the City Council.
Specific Allegations
- Lanting claimed that the respondents committed "odious and despicable criminal activities" by:
- Appointing Ernesto Saw, Jr. to a government position despite potential citizenship issues.
- Falsely effecting the publication of a vacant position contrary to Republic Act No. 7041.
- Questioning the appointments of other individuals related to Charito Rumbo.
- Lanting also accused Erlinda Magalong, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Director II, of inappropriately employing her brother, Percival Magalong, at the CSC.
Respondents' Defense
- The respondents filed a joint counter-affidavit denying the charges.
- They argued that:
- Ernesto Saw, Jr. was a Filipino citizen based on his birth certificate and Personnel Data Sheet.
- Even if he were a Chinese citizen, there were no laws prohibiting his employment in gover