G.R. No. 244775 - ADELAIDA YATCO, VS. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, MARLYN "LEN" BELIZARIO ALONTE-NAGUIT, WALFREDO REYES DIMAGUILA, JR., VIRGILIO M. DIMARANAN, AND ANGELITO ALONALON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, it cannot review the Ombudsman's decisions in criminal or non-administrative cases. Further, it ruled that petitioner misconstrued the ruling in Cortes , because it did not contain a categorical pronouncement that an aggrieved party has "alternative remedies" in case of a consolidated decision by the Ombudsman resolving administrative and criminal complaints. [10] In fact, in one case, [11] the Court held that the CA exceeded its jurisdiction when the latter touched on the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman's decision. [12] Hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue before the Court is whether or not the CA correctly dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari as regards the criminal aspect of cases coming from the Ombudsman. The Court's Ruling The petition lacks merit. The corresponding remedies to assail Ombudsman rulings with respect to administrative and criminal charges are already well-settled in jurisprudence. With respect to administrative charges, there is a delineation between appealable and unappealable Ombudsman rulings. Pursuant to Section 27 [13] 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. [14] 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 . [15] 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 . As stated in Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules: [16] Section 7. Finality and execution of decision . - Where the respondent is absolved of the charge , and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary , the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable . In all other cases , the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court , within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied) Meanwhile, with respect to criminal charges , the Court has settled that the remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution