falsification of leave forms where there is no requirement for the
Enemecio v Ombudsman
GR No. 146731
Petitioner: Agustina Enemencio
Respondent: Office of Ombudsman Visayas , Servando
Bernante
Ponente: J. Carpio
Origin: Petition for review (Rule 45) on certiorari assailing
resolution of CA dismissing administrative case for being
inappropriate remedy the petition for certiorari filed by
petitioner Enemecio against respondents.
Facts:
Enemecio is a utility worker at the Cebu State College fo
Science and Technology, College of Fisheries Technology
while Bernante was Assistant prosecutor of CSCST-CFT.
Enemecio filed an ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT with
the Executive Dean of the school for Bernantes
o Gross misconduct
o Falsification of public document
o Malversation
o Dishonesty
o Defamation
The dean indorsed complaint to Ombudsman
Enemecio also filed a CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT. The
Ombudsman required her to submit an affidavit and
affidavit of her witnesses. She submitted the affidavits and
likewise of Bernantes. The two cases were docketed and
was jointly tried.
Enemecios allegations
o Bernante caused the spray-painting of obscene
and unprintable words against her on the walls
of CSCST campus.
o Bernante shouted defamatory words against her
while in school premises
o He made it appear he was on forced leave from
May 15-31, 1996 when in truth he was serving a
20-day prison term because of his conviction for
slight physical injuries. He was able to receive
salary even though he was not entitled through
his falsified leave applications
Bernante
o Did not deny he was in prison
o The cases filed were retaliation for the case he
filed against Enemecios friends
o Denied spray-painting of obscenities
Ruling of Ombudsman
Administrative complaint
1. no regulation restricting purpose/use of leave credits.
There was not requirement that the specifics or reasons
for going on leave be spelled out
2. spray painting allegations had insufficient evidence; no
eye-witness ; probable only when the witness saw that
respondent had drinking free with security guard around 11
pm
3. defamation charges; there was 1 witness but did not
meet the 2 categories provided under Palma case with
regard to admin actions against municipal officers
2 Categories:
- must be related to discharge of functions (neglect of duty,
oppression, corruption)
- those not connected with said functions involving moral turpitude
provided that a final judgement be had as a condition precedent to
admin action because oral defamation charge pending with MCTC
Cebu, administrative culpability cannot be determined
Criminal complaint
1. no dispute that leave forms are public document. There is no
indication of reasons for going on leave. Regardless of such a
requirement, the need to indicate the whereabouts of a vacationing
employee is not a necessity for its approval.
Enemecio filed SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR
CERTIORARI assailing resolutions which dismissed
criminal complaint and denied motion for
reconsideration with the Court of Appeals.
Ruling of Court of Appeals
Applying ruling in Fabian v Desierto, the court of appeals
DISMISSED petition for
o having filed out of time.
o The proper remedy available to Enemecio was a
petition for review under Rule 43 and not a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
In a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, Enemecio
argued that appellate court should not have relied on
Fabian.
o The case declared void only Sec. 27 of RA 6770
and Sec 7, Rule 113 of Administrative Code 07,
in so far as they provide for appeals in admin
disciplinary cases form the Ombudsman to SC.
o The other provisions of Sec 27 of and AO No. 7
including the final and unappealable character
of orders, resolutions, or decisions exonerating
respondent from any criminal liability still stands.
CA DENIED MR.
o As to administrative case
The petition for review must be
brough under Rule 43 and must be
filed within 15 days from notice of
assailed final order/resolution.
Since Enemecio received copy of
Ombudsmans Order on March 22,
2000, she only had until April 6, 2000
to file appeal. However, she filed hers
only on May 8, 2000.
o As to criminal case
Fabian does not apply to criminal
cases. The only provision declared
void was Sec 27 of RA 6770 which
authorized appeals to the Supreme
Court from decisions of the
Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases.
The power to review decisions of the
Ombudsman in criminal cases is
retained by the SC under Sec 14 of
RA 6770.
Thus, CA dismissed petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA
is proper to question the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed with
the Ombudsman? NO
Held:
Procedural
Enemencios lawyer (Atty. Fernandez) was admonished
for coming before the Supreme Court claiming that what
was involved in the petition before the appellate court was
the administrative, not the criminal case when it was
apparent from the statement of Enemecios petition in the
Court of Appeals states criminal complaint.
Even the petition before CA questioning the administrative
case will be assumed by the SC, it will likewise fail.
Appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in an
administrative disciplinary actions should be brought to the
CA only with Rule 43. The only provision affected by the
Fabian ruling is the designation of the CA as the proper
forum and of Rule 43 as the proper mode of appeal. All
matters in Sec 27 of RA 6770 including finality or non-
finality of Ombudsman remain valid.
Jurisprudence now holds that where 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 (GADALEJ), the
aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari with SC
under Rule 65.
o Since enemecio filed a certiorari petition before
CA, she availed of wrong remedy in the wrong
forum.
No GADALEJ in the Obudsman determination of the case.

Substantial No falsification

Elements of falsification of public documents (Art. 171

par. 4 of RPC
o Offender makes in a document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts
o The offender has a legal obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated
o The facts narrated by the offender are
absolutely false
o The perversion of truth in the narration of facts
was made with wrongful intent to injure a 3 rd
person
Second requisite of legal obligation to disclose is absent.
Enemecio failed to point to any law imposing upon
Bernante the legal obligation to disclose where he was
going to spend his leave of absence.
The Ombudsman may dismiss the complaint forthwith
if he finds it insufficient in form. On the other hand, he
may continue with the inquiry if he finds otherwise.

o Ombudsman in this case carefully studied the

merits of the criminal complaint.

Disposition: Petition DENIED for lack of merit