... ~

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anbiganba!,anQuezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

SAMUEL A. MARINA Y, S8-17-SCA-0024Petitioner,

- versus -

Present:Quiroz, J., ChairpersonCruz, J.Jacinto, J.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Promulgated:and PETER KATE MANINGAS,

Respondents. A eri I l~ ,20 18 ~x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

JACINTO, J:

This a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Cou11filed by petitioner Samuel A. Marinay (petitioner), assailing the Office ofthe Ombudsman's (OMB) Consolidated Resolution dated 11 January 2016,1indicting him and three others for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act(R.A) No. 3019,2 and the Order dated 17 July 2017,3 denying his Motion

for Reconsideration in OMB-C-C-09-0532-J4 and OMB-L-C-15-0238.5

ANTECEDENTS

On 24 September 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ifugaofiled a complaint for Violation of Sec. 3(e) and (g) ofR.A. No. 3019, GraveMisconduct, Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest ofthe Service, Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Officer and Gross Neglect ofDuty against then Governor Teodoro B. Baguilat, Jr. The criminal aspect ofthe complaint was docketed as OMB-C-C-09-0532-J while theadministrative aspect was docketed as OMB-C-A-09-0549-J.

I Annex A of Petition, Rotlo, pp. 21-32.2 The Anti-Graft and COITUptPractices Act.3 Annex F of Petition, id., pp. 75-79.4 "Sangguniang Panlalawigan of lfugao Represented by Jose Jordan T. Gullitiw et al., v. Teodoro B.Baguilat, Jr."5 "Field Investigation Unit-Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Represented by Peter KateManingas v. Teodoro B. Baguilat, et al."

DECISIONSamuel A. Marinay v. Office of the OmbudsmanSB-17-SCA-0024Page 2 of5x.,. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

On 20 July 2015, the Field Investigation Unit of the Office of theDeputy Ombudsman for Luzon filed a complaint for Violation of Sec. 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019 and Gross Neglect of Duty against petitioner, GovernorBaguilat, Jr., and two other individuals. The complaint was docketed asOMB-L-C-15-0238 and OMB-L-A-15-0307.

The OMB consolidated the two criminal complaints (OMB-C-C-09-0532-J and OMB-L-C-15-0238) and two administrative complaints (OMB-C-A-09-0549-J and OMB-L-A-15-0307) since the cases involved the samefactual matters and issues.

Thereafter, the OMB issued a Consolidated Resolution dated 11January 2016 and approved by the Honorable Ombudsman on 10 April 2017in OMB-C-C-09-0532-J and OMB-L-C-15-0238, finding probable cause toindict petitioner and his eo-respondents before this Court. On the otherhand, the OMB issued a Consolidated Decision dated 2 March 20176 andapproved by the Hon. Ombudsman on 11 April 2017, dismissing, amongothers, the administrative case against petitioner for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration? but the same wasdenied in an Order8 dated 17 July 2016 and approved by the Hon.Ombudsman on 11 September 2017.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari.

In its Comment dated 24 November 2017,9 the Office of the SpecialProsecutor (OSP) points out that under prevailing jurisprudence, the Courthas no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Petition and that petitioner'scorrect remedy was to file the Petition before the Supreme Court.

RULING

Sec. 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975and R.A. No. 8249, provides that this Court has "exclusive originaljurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus,prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writsand processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar

6 Annex D of Petition, Rollo, pp. 54-67. Il7 Annex E of Petition, id., pp 68-74. J8 Annex F of Petition, id., pp. 75-79.9 Rollo, pp. 85-91.

DECISION

Samuel A. Marinay v. Office of the OmbudsmanSB-17-SCA-0024Page 3 of5x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed orwhich may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not beexclusive of the Supreme Court." In sum, the Court's jurisdiction to takecognizance of special civil actions is only limited to cases wherein itexercises appellate jurisdiction, and of petitions that fall within thecategories indicated in the same section.

As for special civil actions assailing the correctness of the OMB's - anon-judicial body - Resolution or Decision in a criminal or administrativecase, the Supreme Court in Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman'? held asfollows:

It is the nature of the case that determines the proper remedy to befiled and the appellate court where such remedy should be filed by a partyaggrieved by the decisions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman. If itis an administrative case, appeal should be taken to the Court of Appealsunder Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. If it is a criminal case, the properremedy is to me with the Supreme Court an original petitionfor certiorariunder Rule 65.

Considering the foregoing, there is no need to discuss the substantiveissues posed by petitioner since the Court has no recourse but to dismiss thePetition for lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Certioraridated 23 October 2017 filed by Samuel A. Marinay is DISMISSED, forlack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

BAYAAss

10 G.R. No. 131445,27 May 2004, citing Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, 16 September 1998;Kuizon v. Desierto,G.R. Nos. 140619-24,9 March 2001; and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman,G.R. No. 149148,5 April 2002.

DECISIONSamuel A. Marinay v. Office of the OmbudsmanSB-17-SCA-0024Page 4 of5x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

WE CONCUR:

P. CRUZAssociate Justice

DECISIONSamuel A. Marinay v. Office of the OmbudsmanSB-17-SCA-0024Page 5 of5x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached inconsultation with the Justices of the Court's Division.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in theabove Decision had been reached in consultation before the case wasassigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

. .