You are on page 1of 2


G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006



CABRERA AND DIONY VENTURA, in their capacities as Governor of Pampanga,
Mayor of Sasmuan, Vice Mayor of Sasmuan, and Superintendent of PNP Region 3,

This is an instant petition for review on certiorari that seeks the reversal of the Resolution
and the Order both issued by the Office of the Ombudsman. The Resolution dismissed the
complaint-affidavit filed by petitioner against respondents and the Order denied her
motion for reconsideration.

Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

1. The petitioner operates a fishpond under a lease agreement with the Municipality
of Sasmuan, Pampanga.
2. Respondent Mayor and Vice Mayor of Sasmuan ordered the demolition of said
fishpond on the ground of being it being an illegal structure because it was erected
on the seashore, at the mouth of the Pasak River, and sat on an inalienable land.
3. Petitioner imputed evident bad faith on respondents Mayor Baltazar and Vice-
Mayor Cabrera in allowing the destruction of the fishpond despite their prior
knowledge of the existence of the lease agreement over the tract of land. She also
charged respondents Governor Lapid and Senior Superintendent Ventura with
gross inexcusable negligence for ordering the destruction of the fishpond without
first verifying its legality.
4. The Ombudsman ruled in favor of the defendants, saying that:
 The lease agreement entered into by petitioner was void ab initio. The Department of
Agriculture (DA) is the government agency authorized to enter into licensing
agreements for fishpond operations. The repealing clause of R.A. No. 7160 expressly
repealed only Sec. 2, 6 and 29 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 704 so that in
harmonizing the remaining provisions of P.D. No. 704 and the provisions of R.A. No.
7160 applicable to the grant of fishery privileges, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR) is the government agency authorized to grant fishpond license.
 Based on the declaration that the fishpond was a nuisance per se, it may be abated by
respondents in the exercise of the police power of the State.
 Judicial proceeding was not necessary to determine whether the property indeed had
caused the flooding in the municipality.

1. W/N the petitioner’s filing of the petition for review on certiorari by the Supreme
Court to reverse the decision of the Ombudsman was a correct remedy
1. NO. “In this case, petitioner has taken the position that the Ombudsman has
decided questions of substance contrary to law and the applicable decisions of the
Supreme Court. That is a ground under a Rule 45 petition. Indeed, from a reading
of the assignment of errors, it is clear that petitioner does not impute grave
abuse of discretion to the Ombudsman in issuing the assailed
Resolution and Order. Rather, she merely questions his findings and
conclusions. Direct appeal to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on
certiorari is not sanctioned by any rule of procedure. By availing of a wrong
remedy, the petition should be dismissed outright.

By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of

judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not
enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner.

Direct resort to this Court may be had only through the extraordinary writ of
certiorari and upon showing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of
discretion, which petitioner failed to demonstrate. Absent any grave abuse of
discretion tainting it, the courts will not interfere with the Ombudsman's
supervision and control over the preliminary investigation conducted by him. It is
beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the
Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. The rule is
based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted
by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.”

Prepared by:
JD 104

Quick Reference:
Article VI -
SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.