G.R. No. 229288 - SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN, V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

Ruling

accordingly pray that the Ombudsman be directed to file an information with the Sandiganbayan against the responsible COMELEC officials and conspiring private individuals. In Kuizon v. Desierto and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman , we held that this Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari questioning resolutions or orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. For administrative cases, however, we declared in the case of Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman(Visavas) that the petition should be filed with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Dagan ruling homogenized the procedural rule with respect to administrative cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman first enunciated in Fabian v. Desierto that is, all remedies involving the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, whether by an appeal under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, must be filed with the Court of Appeals. x x x x The Ombudsman's determination of probable cause may only be assailed through certiorari proceedings before this Court on the ground that such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Not every error in the proceedings or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, however, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. It has been stated that the Ombudsman may err or even abuse the discretion lodged in her by law, but such error or abuse alone does not render her act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari . To justify judicial intrusion into what is fundamentally the domain of another constitutional body, the petitioner must clearly show that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in making her determination and in arriving at the conclusion she reached. For there to be a finding of grave abuse of discretion, it must be shown that the discretionary power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. [43] (Emphasis supplied) It is thus clear that the Morales decision never intended to disturb the well-established distinction between the appellate remedies for orders, directives, and decisions arising from administrative cases and those arising from non-administrative or criminal cases. Gatchalian's contention that the unconstitutionality of Section 14 of R.A. 6770 declared in Morales equally applies to both administrative and criminal cases and thus the CA from then on had jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 to question orders and decisions arising from criminal cases is simply misplaced. Section 14 of R.A. 6770 was declared unconstitutional because it trampled on the rule-making powers