You are on page 1of 1

26 BAVIERA vs ZOLETA

Re: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
FACTS:

Baviera filed complaints against officers of Standard Chartered Bank , including one Sridnar Raman, claiming he was
victimized by the officers by soliciting funds in unregistered and unauthorized foreign stocks and securities. He was
able to secure a Hold Departure Order [HDO] against some of the complained officers including the Indian national
Raman. Raman was able to travel out of the country through the verbal order of Acting Secretary of Justice Gutierez.
Gutierez claims that she only acted within her powers as an Acting Secretary, and that she did not violate any laws in
allowing such. Baviera filed a criminal case for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against
Gutierez alleging that the latter acted in grave abuse of her discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
Gutierez on the other hand averred that absent the element of renumeration there can be no crime under RA 3019.

The Graft Investigation and Prosecutor Officer Rolando Zoleta signed a resolution recommending the complaint be
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in the CA. CA dismissed the
petition on the ground that the proper remedy for was to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under
Rule 65. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pointing out that his petition for certiorari was in accordance
with previous ruling in Fabian v. Desierto; he insisted that under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the CA had concurrent
jurisdiction with the SC over petitions of certiorari from the Office on the Ombudsman; and, he asserted that the
petition conformed to the established judicial policy of hierarchy of Courts. Motion was denied CA claimed that the
ruling in Fabian only applies to administrative disciplinary cases, hence this petition before the SC.

ISSUE:

WON the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the CA was the proper remedy to assail the resolution of the
Office of the Ombudsman.

RULING:

NO. The proper remedy to assail the Resolutions of the Ombudsman finding no probable cause for criminal cases is
to file a petition for certiorari under rule 65 with the Supreme Court, not with the CA (Tirol Jr. vs. Del Rosario). It
was reiterated in Kuizon v. Desierto, and in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, the SC ruled that the remedy to
challenge the Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a preliminary investigation is to file a petition for
certiorari to the SC under Rule 65. Rulings in Estrada v. Desierto and Kuizon v. Ombudsman ruled that CA’s
jurisdiction only extends to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, and further reiterated
in future cases of Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas).

Due to the number of cases that echo the same ruling, the court finds it proper to apply the doctrine of stare decisis et
non quieta movere, stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.