G.R. No. 233234 - NAPOLEON C. TOLOSA, JR., VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ELIZABETH B. TATEL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, ON THE FOREGOING, for want of evidence sufficient to engender a finding of probable cause for the criminal charge, the criminal case is DISMISSED. For want of substantial evidence to warrant the conduct of further proceedings, the administrative case is likewise DISMISSED. SO RESOLVED. [15] Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the Ombudsman. Undaunted, petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the CA to assail the Ombudsman's Joint-Resolution and Joint-Order. [16] In the assailed Decision dated April 7, 2017, the CA denied the petition. The CA found that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy when he filed the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. It ruled that the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's Joint-Resolution is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules with the Supreme Court since the respondent has been exonerated of the administrative charge, which is final and unappealable, and that the criminal complaint against her was dismissed. The CA then stated that while the petition should have been dismissed outright, a review of the substantial merits still yielded the same conclusion with that of the Ombudsman, that there was no probable cause to indict the respondent for violation of R.A. No. 6713, and no substantial evidence was presented to establish the administrative charges. The CA also held that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it rendered its decision, and ruled in this wise: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Joint-Order dated February 24, 2014 and Joint-Resolution dated November 20, 2013 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-P-C-10-0432-C and OMB-P-A-10-0471-C are AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.