Case 4

TITLE: JOWETT K. GOLANGCOvs.ATTY. JONE B.

FUNGOFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMANvs.HON. COURT

OF APPEALS and ATTY. JONE B. FUNG

SOURCE: G.R. No. 147640, October 12, 2006

G.R. No. 147762, October 12, 2006
PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:

This Resolution was disapproved by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo

L. Aportadera, Jr., who recommended the reassignment of the case to
another graft investigating officer so that the administrative and criminal
aspects of the case can be reconciled. On assuming the Office of the
Ombudsman, Aniano A. Desierto disapproved GIO Onos’ Resolution
recommending the dismissal of the administrative complaint against
respondent, which had already been approved by Assistant Ombudsman
Aportadera by authority of then-Acting Ombudsman Villa. Fung filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of GIO Dao’s Resolution and was denied.
Aggrieved, Fung filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court
impugning the validity of Desierto’s Resolution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a petition for review is proper for questioning internal

resolutions of the Ombudsman.

HELD:

The Court of Appeals cannot review the orders, directives or

decisions of the Office of theOmbudsman in criminal or non-administrative
cases because it has jurisdiction only over orders,directives and decisions
of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.

The appellate court correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases.

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:

  
(1)     The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 24 August
2000 and its Resolution dated 28 March 2001 insofar as it ruled that
respondent Jose B. Fung is not liable for the administrative charge in OMB-
ADM-0-93-0149 is AFFIRMED; and
 
(2)     The same Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
directing the withdrawal of Criminal Case No. 96-149144 pending before
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Manila, is VOID.