Ombudsman Rulings - Administrative vs Criminal Case

[admin]

GR#256337, February 13, 2023
Highlights:
Ombudsman Rulings - Administrative vs Criminal Case
 

With respect to administrative charges, there is a delineation between appealable and unappealable Ombudsman rulings. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, any order, directive or decision of the Ombudsman 'imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, [or] suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary shall be final and unappealable.' Case law has explained that Ombudsman rulings which exonerate the respondent from administrative liability are, by implication, also considered final and unappealable.

 

In these instances, the Court has ruled that even though such rulings are final and unappealable, it is still subject to judicial review on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, and the correct procedure is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA.

 

In contrast, in cases where the respondent is not exonerated and the penalty imposed is not merely public censure or reprimand, or suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary, the Ombudsman's decision is appealable, and the proper remedy is to file an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. x x x xxxx

 

RMeanwhile, with respect to criminal charges, the Court has settled that the remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and the petition should be filed not before the CA, but before the Supreme Court.xx

Reference Cited:
Yatco v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, G.R. No. 244775, July 6, 2020.

R

R