Posted by: Jan Placido on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Enemecio is a utility worker at the Cebu State College of Science and Technology, College of Fisheries Technology (CSCST-CFT). Bernante is an Assistant Professor IV of CSCST-CFT. On March 30, 1998, Enemecio filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct, falsification of public documents, malversation, dishonesty and defamation against Bernante before the Office of the Executive Dean of CSCST-CFT. The Dean indorsed the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Enemecio also filed with the Ombudsman a criminal complaint against Bernante for falsification of public document. On January 13, 2000, the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint. On the same date, the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint against Bernante, finding no probable cause to indict Bernante for falsification of public document. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Enemecio filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, assailing the resolutions which dismissed the criminal complaint and the motion for reconsideration. The appellate court dismissed Enemecio's petition for having been filed out of time. The appellate court also stated that the proper remedy available to Enemecio was a petition for review under Rule 43 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Enemecio is a utility worker at the Cebu State College of Science and Technology, College of Fisheries Technology (CSCST-CFT). Bernante is an Assistant Professor IV of CSCST-CFT. On March 30, 1998, Enemecio filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct, falsification of public documents, malversation, dishonesty and defamation against Bernante before the Office of the Executive Dean of CSCST-CFT. The Dean indorsed the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Enemecio also filed with the Ombudsman a criminal complaint against Bernante for falsification of public document. On January 13, 2000, the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint. On the same date, the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint against Bernante, finding no probable cause to indict Bernante for falsification of public document. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Enemecio filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, assailing the resolutions which dismissed the criminal complaint and the motion for reconsideration. The appellate court dismissed Enemecio's petition for having been filed out of time. The appellate court also stated that the proper remedy available to Enemecio was a petition for review under Rule 43 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the Court of Appeals is the proper remedy to question the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed with the Ombudsman.
HELD:
No. In any event, jurisprudence now holds that where the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause in criminal cases is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65. Since Enemecio filed a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, instead of the Supreme Court, she availed of a wrong remedy in the wrong forum. Hence the instant petition should be dismissed outright.
HELD:
No. In any event, jurisprudence now holds that where the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause in criminal cases is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65. Since Enemecio filed a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, instead of the Supreme Court, she availed of a wrong remedy in the wrong forum. Hence the instant petition should be dismissed outright.
The SC said (added by WinLawSuites Team):
We resolve to dismiss this petition.
Enemecio filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65[16] questioning the Ombudsmans Resolution dated 13 January 2000 and Order dated 28 February 2000 dismissing the criminal case against Bernante.[17] Thus, the Prefatory statement of Enemecios Petition in the Court of Appeals states:
- This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the Resolution dated 13 January 2000 and the Order dated 28 February 2000 both issued by the Public Respondent in the Ombudsman Case docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-98-0201 and entitled, Agustina Enemecio vs. Servando Bernante, Asst. Professor IV, CSCST- College of Fisheries Technology, Carmen, Cebu, for being a manifest and grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The Resolution dated 13 January 2000 dismissed the criminal complaint for malversation and falsification of public documents filed against herein Private Respondent while the Order dated 28 February 2000 denied herein Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Certified machine copies of the aforesaid Resolution and Order are hereto appended as Annexes A and B respectively. (Emphasis supplied)
The appellate court dismissed Enemecios petition and denied her motion for reconsideration. Enemecio now comes to this Court via this petition for review, claiming that what was involved in the petition before the appellate court was the administrative, not the criminal case.[18] Enemecio thus stresses that there is no reason for the Court of Appeals to say that the petition concerned the criminal case.[19]
We cannot countenance the sudden and complete turnabout of Enemecio and her counsel, Atty. Terence L. Fernandez. Atty. Fernandezs conduct has fallen far too short of the honesty required of every member of the Bar.
It is clear from the records that Atty. Fernandez filed with the Court of Appeals a certiorari petition assailing the Ombudsmans Resolution and Order dismissing the criminal case, not the administrative case against Bernante. For this reason, the appellate court in its 7 December 2000 Resolution rectified itself and stated that Fabian does not apply to Enemecios petition as the Fabian ruling applies only to administrative disciplinary actions. Atty. Fernandezs attempt to mislead this Court in a last ditch effort to secure a decision favorable to his clients cause does not escape our attention. As an officer of the court, Atty. Fernandez is duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. He must always bear in mind that good faith and honorable dealings with judicial tribunals are primary obligations of an attorney. He must always remember to deal with courts with truthfulness and not to trifle with court proceedings.[20] For this, Atty. Fernandez should be admonished not to commit similar acts again.
