Bar Review Essentials: Remedies from Rulings or Orders of the Ombudsman

The remedies of an aggrieved person from the orders or rulings of the Ombudsman have been the subject of quite a few bar questions in remedial law.¹ It is thus advisable for a bar reviewee to be familiar with these remedies.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

1.  In administrative cases before the Ombudsman where the decision imposes upon the respondent the penalty of public censure, reprimand, suspension not exceeding one month, or a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, or where the decision exonerates the respondent, such decision is final, executory, and unappealable. Thus, the remedy of an aggrieved person is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals, not with the Supreme Court, in obeisance to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.²    

2. Rulings or final orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases other than that in No. 1 are appealable. The aggrieved person’s remedy is to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and Section 9(3) of B.P. Blg. 129.³

3. The remedy of an aggrieved person from an interlocutory order of the Ombudsman in an administrative case, such as a preventive suspension order, is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals.⁴

CRIMINAL CASES

An aggrieved person’s remedy from a ruling or order of the Ombudsman in a criminal case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, not with the Court of Appeals.⁵

Thus, the recourse of an aggrieved person from an Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause or lack thereof is a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. A petition for certiorari or mandamus with the Supreme Court is available to a person aggrieved by the Ombudsman’s exclusion of a respondent from an information filed with the Sandiganbayan.⁶

JOINT OR CONSOLIDATED RULINGS

An aggrieved person’s remedy from the joint or consolidated ruling of the Ombudsman (administrative & criminal case) is a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals from the administrative aspect, and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court from the criminal aspect. Each of these remedies remains viable only with respect to the aspect it is directed to.⁷ In a case, the petitioner challenged the Ombudsman’s joint or consolidated ruling, which exonerated the respondent in the administrative aspect and dismissed the criminal charges for lack of probable cause, by filing only a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the petition insofar as the criminal aspect was concerned.⁸

-oOo-

---

1. 2022 Bar Question No. 2.9, 2019 Bar Question No. A.7, 2015 Bar Question No. 11(a), and 2006 Bar Question No. 8.  ↩︎
2. Mandagan v. Dela Cruz, 882 SCRA 349 (2018). ↩︎
3. Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470 (1998), e.b. The Court held that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act), which provides that all “orders, directives, or decisions [in administrative cases] of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari … in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,” was unconstitutional for it increased the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence. The Court thus held that “appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43.” ↩︎
4. Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals, 774 SCRA 431 (2015), e.b. ↩︎
5. Kuizon v. Desierto, 354 SCRA 158 (2001). ↩︎
6. See Quarto v. Ombudsman, 658 SCRA 580 (2011). ↩︎
7. Yatco v. Deputy Ombudsman, 941 SCRA 227 (2020). ↩︎
8. Id. ↩︎