G.R. No. 129098 – 539 Phil. 114 – 510 SCRA 55 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Accountability of Public Officers – Ombudsman – Judicial Review – Decisions of the Ombudsman
Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Decisions of Quasi-Judicial Bodies – Appeal – Rule 43; Errors in Judgment – Rule 65; Grave Abuse of Discretion
In 1995, a fishpond operated by Amelia Cabrera was demolished upon order of Gov. Manuel Lapid of Pampanga. The basis for the demolition was that the fishpond was in a non-alienable land (mouth of the river) and that it was causing flooding.
Cabrera filed administrative cases against Lapid and other local officials on the ground that they were negligent in verifying facts before issuing the demolition order.
The Ombudsman dismissed the case on the ground that the fishpond was a nuisance per se and it is within the powers of the local government to cause its demolition even without a judicial proceeding.
Cabrera’s motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court against the Ombudsman.
ISSUE: Whether or not a decision of the Ombudsman may be questioned directly with the Supreme Court.
HELD: As a general rule, NO. Decisions in administrative cases of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43. This was already established in Fabian vs Desierto. (NOTE: in this case, the SC stated: As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.)
If the resolution being questioned pertains to a preliminary investigation in the determination of probable cause (penal proceedings), then the resolution may be questioned by way of Rule 65. But such is not the case here.
The action was an administrative case pertaining to negligence. The allegations in the petition before the Supreme Court pertains to error of judgment (that the resolution was contrary to previous Supreme Court decisions) and not grave abuse of discretion.
