Lanting v.

Ombudsman
Facts:
Zenaida F. Lanting, petitioner, was the Administrative Officer IV of the City Council of Manila. She filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint [2] dated May 12, 1998, docketed as Case No.
OMB-0-98-0965, charging then Manila Vice-Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr., now City Mayor, Emmanuel Sison,
Secretary to the City Council, and Charito Rumbo, Human Resource Management Officer III, herein
respondents, with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). She
alleged that these city officials unlawfully and feloniously appointed Ernesto Saw, Jr., a Chinese citizen
working in Taiwan, and brother-in-law of Charito Rumbo, to the position of Researcher in the City Council.
In the same complaint, petitioner further alleged that respondents fraudulently effected the publication of a
vacant position (Administrative Officer V) in the City Council, in violation of Republic Act No. 7041.
[3]
Petitioner also questioned the appointments of Percival Magalong as Utility I; Atty. Flora AquinoTogonon as Administrative Officer V; and three relatives of Charito Rumbo, Petitioner likewise denounced
Erlinda Magalong, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Director II, for employing Percival Magalong, her
brother, in her office at the Civil Service Field Office, GSIS Building, Manila.

Everyone except Ernesto Saw, Jr. filed their respective counter-affidavits.

On April 8, 1999, Oscar P. Ramos, Graft Investigator Officer I, issued a Resolution recommending that
petitioners complaint be dismissed. The Resolution[7] was reviewed by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L.
Aportadera, Jr. and approved by then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto on June 25, 1999.
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 petitioners motion for lack of merit.
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 Ombudsmans Resolution.
Issue: WON the CA is correct in dismissing said petition?
Ruling:
The instant petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioners complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman is for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Acts. It is not an administrative complaint. Nowhere in her complaint did she allege
administrative offenses, such as dishonesty or misconduct on the part of respondents.
Considering that petitioners complaint is criminal in nature, this Court has the sole authority to review the
Ombudsmans Resolutions on pure question of law as expressly mandated in Section 14, 2 nd paragraph
of R.A. 6770. We held that only appeals from the 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