“Post Judgment Remedies; Certiorari; Judicial Discretion”

Abdulrahman vs. The Office of the Ombudsman,

G.R. No. 175977, August 19, 2013
(Page 592 & 593)

Detailed Facts:

 August 29, 1990 - Private Respondent GUIAMALUDIN SENDAD wrote a letter-complaint to RD

Salvador Ranin of NBI-Cotabato City reporting that Petitioner HADJI PANGSAYAN T.
ABDULRAHMAN, the Land Management Inspector of CENRO-Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat and
GUIALIL SAYUTIN, an employee of CENRO 3-B Maganoy, Maguindanao were allegedly doing
illegal activities; According to SENDAD:

 Petitioner ABDULRAHMAN solicited from him P5,450 as consideration for the titling in
private respondent’s name of lands located in South Upi, Maguindanao, and covered by
the homestead applications of Unos Pacutin and Ting Midtimbang;

 On the other hand, SAYUTIN received documents belonging to private respondent from
Ellen Alcoriza (Alcoriza), records officer of CENRO Salimbao, Sultan Kudarat, without
authority therefor. Sayutin later lost the aforesaid documents;

 The letter-complaint found its way to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (Ombudsman);

 On its order dated July 17, 1992, the Ombudsman require the petitioner to submit his counter-
affidavit;

 On August 1992, instead of submitting counter-affidavit, petitioner filed a Manifestation stating

that SENDAD already executed an Affidavit of Desistance indicating that he had forgiven
petitioner after the latter produced the missing documents and returned the money solicited
together with incidental expenses; ABDULRAHMAN prayed that he be dropped as Respondent;

 The Ombudsman ruled that the Manifestation and Affidavit of Desistance failed to controvert
and, in fact, admitted the material allegations of the complaint. Hence, on March 14, 1995, in
a Resolution, the Ombudsman recommended the dismissal from service of petitioner
ABDULRAHMAN for grave misconduct, while Sayutin and Alcoriza for gross neglect of duty;

 A copy of said Resolution was ordered furnished to the DENR XII RED, who was directed to
implement the dismissal of petitioner, Sayutin, and Alcoriza, and to show proof of compliance
within 10 days from receipt;

 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in an order dated February 19,
1999;

 Petitioner then filed Motion for New Trial or Second Motion for Reconsideration, attaching the
affidavit of SENDAD stating that the P5,450 was actually paid to SANGEBAN (the driver of a
truck) and TUHOK (owner of the horses) used for transportation when they went to South Upi,
Maguindanao to conduct an ocular inspection of the lands covered by the homestead
applications of Unos Pacutin and Ting Midtimbang; These were corroborated by SANGEBAN and
TUHOK;

 In an Order dated 23 August 1999, the Ombudsman denied the motion for being a second
motion for reconsideration;

 Under the mistaken notion that the Motion for New Trial or Second Motion for Reconsideration
had yet to be resolved, the new DENR Region XII RED ordered the retention of petitioner in his
position pending the resolution of the second motion for reconsideration;
 Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA assailing the Ombudsman’s Resolution
recommending his dismissal;

 In a Decision dated June 28, 2001, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit; The Decision
attained finality on September 4, 2001;

 On March 15, 2004, the DENR XII RED officer-in-charge inquired about the status of the case
of petitioner as the latter was then still reporting for work and even applying for a promotion;

 On March 31, 2004, the Ombudsman issued an Order of Implementation directing DENR XII
RED officer-in-charge Jim Sampulna to implement the dismissal from service of petitioner and
to show proof of compliance within 10 days from receipt;

 On August 13, 2004, ABDULRAHMAN received the copy of the Order of Implementation;

 On August 16, 2004, ABDULRAHMAN filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer
for a Status Quo Order before the CA, alleging that the Ombudsman had issued the Order of
Implementation with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; He argued that:

 Implementation should have been addressed to the Secretary of DENR as the head of
office who had the power to appoint and dismiss him;

 He questioned the Order of Implementation for being a direct order to dismiss since
Ombudsman is only empowered to recommend the removal of erring public employees;

 He also argued that while the Order of Implementation was in the nature of an execution
of judgment, which may not be stayed, the petition presented an exception;

 On July 21, 2005, the CA issued the first assailed Resolution dismissing the petition for the
following reasons: (1) failure to implead private respondent; and (2) failure to attach copies of
the pleadings and documents relevant to the petition.

 On, August 17, 2005, ABDULRAHMAN filed a Motion for Reconsideration;

 On November 14, 2006, the CA issued the second assailed Resolution denying the Motion for
Reconsideration. It ruled that:

 it could excuse the second infirmity (failure to attach copies…), since it could very well
require petitioner to submit additional requirements necessary for the resolution of the
petition. To excuse the first infirmity, however, would render the petition non-adversarial
(failure to implead private respondent SENDAD);

 Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the Order of Implementation. Thus,
his petition was rendered dismissible for failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

 Since petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the Order of Implementation
before filing a petition for certiorari, he also failed to comply with the requirement of
stating the material dates in the petition, to wit:

1. When judgment or final order was received;

2. when the motion for reconsideration was filed; and
3. when notice of denial thereof was received.

 Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Ultimate facts:

The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao recommended the dismissal of ABDULRAHMAN,
Sayutin and Alcoriza from service. It found Sayutin and Alcoriza guilty of gross neglect of duty and
petitioner ABDULRAHMAN of grave misconduct and directed the DENR XII RED to implement the Order
of Dismissal. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. He then filed a
Motion for New Trial or Second Motion for Reconsideration, however, the same was denied for being
a second motion for reconsideration. Under the mistaken notion that it is yet to be resolved by the
Ombudsman, the new DENR Region XII RED ordered the retention of petitioner pending resolution of
said Motion. The DENR XII RED OIC inquired about the status of the case of petitioner as he was then
still reporting for work and applied for a promotion. The Ombudsman issued an Order of
Implementation directing DENR XII RED to implement the dismissal from service of
petitioner and to show proof of compliance within 10 days from receipt. When petitioner received
the copy of said Order, he immediately filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a
Status Quo Order before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the Ombudsman had issued the Order
of Implementation with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction arguing that the
Order should have been addressed to the DENR Secretary as the head of office who had the power to
appoint and dismiss him. However, CA issued a resolution dismissing the petition because of procedural
errors, namely: (1) failure to implead private respondent; (2) failure to attach copies of the pleadings
and documents relevant to the petition; (3) failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order of
Implementation; and, (4) failure to allege material dates in the petition, to wit: (a) when judgment or
final order was received; (b) when the motion for reconsideration was filed; and (c) when notice of
denial thereof was received.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari when it failed to liberally
construe the Rules of Court.

2. Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion when it directed the
order of dismissal to DENR XII RED when in fact it should be directed to DENR Secretary as
the head of office.

Ruling:
On the First Issue: No, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari.

In Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services, Inc., 455 Phil. 992, 997 (2003), it was held that, “The
acceptance of a petition for certiorari, and necessarily the grant of due course thereto, is addressed to
the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the court may reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari (1)
when there is no showing of grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the
government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, such as violations of the Rules of Court or
Supreme Court circulars.”

In this case, the CA dismissed petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari because of
procedural errors, namely: (1) failure to implead private respondent; (2) failure to attach copies of
the pleadings and documents relevant to the petition; (3) failure to file a motion for reconsideration of
the Order of Implementation; and, consequently, (4) failure to allege material dates in the petition.

On the Second Issue: No, the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion.

In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, 16 December 2011, it was held that, “Grave
abuse of discretion is "the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction x x x and it is not present when the acts are found to be mere errors of judgment or simple
abuse of discretion.”

Here, Petitioner manifested that at the time the complaint was filed, he was employed at DENR
XII on a contractual basis as evidenced by Contracts of Technical Services. The Ombudsman was never
informed of any change in the status of appointment of petitioner. Thus, the Ombudsman had reason
to believe that his employment continued to be under a contract of service. Even if this belief was
mistaken, the Court finds that it does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.