This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-11-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman[153] (November 19, 2013), involving a Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing a final and unappealable order of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case, the Court remarked that "petitioner employed the correct mode of review in this case, i.e., a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals."[154] In this relation, it stated that while "a special civil action for Certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, such petition should be initially filed with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts." Further, the Court upheld Barata v. Abalos, Jr.[155] (June 6, 2001), wherein it was ruled that the remedy against final and unappealable orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case was a Rule 65 petition to the CA. The same verdict was reached in Ruivivar[156] (September 16, 2008). | |||||
|
2014-10-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| It is settled' that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.[53] Indeed, certiorari lies to assail the Office of the Ombudsman's decision when there is allegation of grave abuse of discretion.[54] Grave abuse of discretion involves a "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction."[55] It must be shown that the Office of the Ombudsman exercised its power "in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law in order to exceptionally warrant judicial intervention."[56] | |||||