003 - kuizon v. desierto

KUIZON v. DESIERTO March 9, 2001 | Puno, J. | Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court Digester: Venturanza, Maria SUMMARY: Three complaints were filed in the Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Benedicto Kuizon. In a memorandum, the Office of Chief Legal Counsel recommended the continued prosecution of the accused, which the Ombudsman subsequently approved. Kuizon filed a petition in the CA assailing the approval of the Ombudsman. CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, which the SC upheld, citing the doctrine enunciated in Fabian. DOCTRINE: The appellate court’s jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. Petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, when resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, must be filed in the Supreme Court. FACTS: Melanio Saporas filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas (OMB-Visayas) against petitioner Benedicto Kuizon, the incumbent Municipal Mayor of Bato (Leyte) for Nepotism, which was later dropped, and Malversation Thru Falsification of Public Documents. Attached to the complaint is an affidavit of Zacarias Kuizon, who claimed that after the petitioner dispensed with his service as a laborer, somebody forged his signature in the payroll and took his salary amounting to P890.00. Later, Rosalina Tolibas, the Paymaster, and Joselito Daan, the Timekeeper, were included in the complaint. Saporas submitted a second complaint using the affidavits of Ceferino Cedejana and Concordio Cedejana, who both made similar allegations to that of Zacarias Kuizon’s claim. Saporas filed a third Affidavit-Complaint for Malversation of Public Funds Thru Falsification of Public Documents and violation of R.A. No. 3019 against petitioners and three others for alleged connivance in including in the payrolls names of workers whose services were already terminated. The OMB-Visayas issued a Resolution finding sufficient grounds to hold petitioners for trial for Malversation of Public Funds and Falsification of Public Documents. All cases were consolidated. 17 May 1999: The Office of the Chief Legal Counsel recommended that the continued prosecution of all the accused, there being no cogent grounds to warrant a reversal of the finding of probable cause by OMB- Visayas. Respondent Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the memorandum. Thereafter, Sandiganbayan set the criminal cases for hearing. Petitioner Daan filed with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation and to Defer Arraignment. However, the motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan and petitioners were arraigned on the same date, where they all pleaded “not guilty”. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition before the CA assailing the approval by the respondent Desierto of the Memorandum dated 17 May 1999. The CA promulgated a Resolution, dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and using Fabian v. Desierto as basis. Thus, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court at the SC. RULING: Petition dismissed and the Sandiganbayan is ordered to continue with the trial of the cases at bat with dispatch. WoN the CA’s dismissal of the petition was valid –YES. In the Fabian case, the Court ruled that appeals from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in