G.R. NO. 141426 - ZENAIDA F. LANTING, VS. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, ANTI-GRAFT INVESTIGATOR OSCAR RAMOS, MAYOR LITO ATIENZA, EMMANUEL SISON, VIRGILIO FORBES, CHARITO RUMBO, DIRECTOR ERLINDA MAGALONG AND ERNESTO SAW, JR.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that all the charges against respondents herein be dismissed." On July 14, 1999, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above Resolution on the ground that Investigator Oscar Ramos "conveniently and intentionally skirted the issue of falsification of public documents which are crystal clear in my complaint." [8] She then prayed for a re-investigation of her complaint by a Special Prosecutor. [9] On July 26, 1999, the Ombudsman denied petitioner's motion for lack of merit. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54724. On September 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the assailed Ombudsman's Resolution. The Appellate Court held: "Considering the mandate of the second paragraph of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," which provides that "No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court on pure question of law," the Court resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of jurisdiction. And, even from the standpoint of procedure, the petition should be dismissed for suffering some procedural errors, to wit: Non-submission of the proof of service (Sec. 13, Rule 13; Sec. 2 (c), Rule 56; Sec. 3, par. 2, Rule 46 x x x, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure); Failure to state the material dates showing that the petition was filed on time, i.e., the date when the assailed resolution dated April 8, 1999 was received (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended by Supreme Court Circular No. 39-98 in Bar Matter No. 803); and, Insufficient verification of the petition x x x. SO ORDERED.