G.R. NO. 157175 - HILARIO P. SORIANO, VS. ZENAIDA A. CABAIS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of Assistant Prosecutor Magabilin recommending the DISMISSAL of the instant Complaint is hereby AFFIRMED. Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. approved the "Review and Recommendation." Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman in its Order of November 4, 2002. On December 26, 2002, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74378. In its Resolution dated January 31, 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that: This is an appeal, by way of petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, of the Ombudsman's resolution dismissing petitioner's criminal complaint for perjury against respondent. However, a petition for review before this Court of the Ombudsman's decision will lie only if the proceedings had in that office pertains to purely administrative disciplinary cases (Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470). Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari . Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in invoking our ruling in Fabian v. Desierto . [4] The petition lacks merit. In Fabian, [5] we ruled that appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. This ruling has been repeatedly reiterated in subsequent cases [6] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. Here, petitioner's complaint is criminal in nature . In Estrada v. Desierto, [7] we held that the remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or non-administrative cases , when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari with this Court, not with the Court of Appeals. In cases when the aggrieved party is questioning the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause, as in this case, there is likewise the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals. This rule was subsequently restated in Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon [8] where we held that the remedy of an aggrieved party in criminal complaints before the Ombudsman is to file with this Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Clearly, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. Even assuming that petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, we would have dismissed it just the same since there is nothing in the records to even suggest that the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint for perjury against respondent. In its Review and Recommendation dated July 12, 2002, the Office of the Ombudsman held: As concluded by Assistant City Prosecutor Mag