CA-G.R. SP No.
17824 Page 2 of 6
Resolution
CORPIN, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari (With Prayer
for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction),1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court (Rules), assailing the Decision2 dated October 13, 2023,
of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-V-A-
JAN-23-0014, for Violation of Republic Act No. 6713.
The assailed decision of the Ombudsman held the
petitioner Vincent I. Navarosa (petitioner) as administratively
liable for grave misconduct. He was ordered dismissed from
the service with the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from holding public office, among others.
A perusal of the instant certiorari petition constrains the
Court to dismiss it outright for being the wrong remedy.
It is settled that the proper remedy from an
administrative disciplinary case is a Petition for Review under
Rule 43 of the Rules, filed with this Court. In Fabian v.
Desierto,3 the Supreme Court en banc held that “appeals from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals
under the provisions of Rule 43.”4
However, a distinction must be made as to whether the
Ombudsman's ruling is appealable or not. In this regard,
Yatco v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon 5 is
instructive, viz.:
With respect to administrative charges,
there is a delineation between appealable and
unappealable Ombudsman rulings. Pursuant
1 Rollo, pp.
2 Id. at
3 G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998 [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].
4 Id.
5 G.R. No. 244775, July 6, 2020 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
CA-G.R. SP No. 17824 Page 3 of 6
Resolution
to Section 27 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. 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.
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:
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.
CA-G.R. SP No. 17824 Page 4 of 6
Resolution
xxx xxx xxx6 (Emphases and underscoring in the
original; citations omitted)
The foregoing pronouncement remains a good law and
has been further reiterated in the more recent cases of Dela
Cruz v. Office of the Ombudsman,7 Bariata v. Carpio-Morales,8
Tismo v. Office of the Ombudsman,9 and Province of Bataan v.
Casimiro.10
In the case at bar, the petitioner asserts that the assailed
decision is immediately executory under Rule III, section 7 of
Administrative Order No. 7, or the Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman Rules). The petitioner
further contends that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, and he was thus
constrained to resort to the instant certiorari petition. He
presents the following issues to be resolved by the Court, to
wit:
A. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT, HON. OMB,
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED THE
ASSAILED DECISION. THERE IS LACK OF
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF
GRAVE MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE
PETITIONER.
B. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT, HON. OMB,
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT BLATANTLY IGNORED
AND REFUSED PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE,
HENCE COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS IN
THE APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND
APPLICATION OF LAW IN ARRIVING AT THE
ASSAILED DECISION.
6 Yatco v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, id.
7 G.R. No. 256337, February 13, 2023 [Per J. Hernando, First Division].
8 G.R. No. 234640, February 1, 2023 [Per J. Gaerlan, Third Division].
9 G.R. No. 228055, January 23, 2023 [Per J. Kho, Jr., Second Division].
10 G.R. Nos. 197510-11 & 201347, April 18, 2022 [Per J. Hernando, Second Division].
CA-G.R. SP No. 17824 Page 5 of 6
Resolution
C. INASMUCH AS THE ASSAILED DECISION IS
PATENTLY UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE, THERE
IS VALID REASON TO STAY THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASSAILED
DECISION, WHICH IF IMPLEMENTED WOULD
RESULT TO THE GREAT DAMAGE AND
PREJUDICE NOT ONLY TO THE PETITIONER,
BUT ALSO TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.11
Indeed, Rule III, section 7 of Administrative Order No. 7, 12
as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, 13 partly provides
that the decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases
shall be executed as a matter of course, and an appeal shall
not stop the decision from being executory.
However, the Court does not agree with the petitioner's
assertion that his petition for certiorari is the proper recourse
as there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy against the
Ombudsman's ruling dismissing him from the service.
Case law on the matter is settled that when the
respondent (petitioner in this case) in an administrative
disciplinary case before the Ombudsman “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.”14
Petitioner herein was meted the penalty of dismissal from
the service, thus a certiorari petition will not lie since an
appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules is an adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
Finally, the Court observes that the petitioner sought the
11 Rollo, pp. 9-10, 178-179.
12 Available at <https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/adminorders/Administrative_Order_No
_07.pdf> (last accessed on June 16, 2025).
13 Available at <https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/adminorders/Administrative_Order_
Number _17.pdf> (last accessed on June 16, 2025).
14 Tismo v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra note 9.
