Police officers Miggy and Laida were involved in an alleged buy-bust operation against Mr. Magtalas, a suspected drug dealer. Mr. Magtalas maintained his innocence, asserting that the drugs were merely planted. He further claimed that he was unjustifiably beaten up by the police officers. Mr. Magtalas filed before 5 of 5 the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers (OMB-MOLEO) a criminal complaint for planting evidence which is punishable under Section 29 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165). Mr. Magtalas also filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Miggy and Laida in light of the unwarranted physical assault against him. The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) rendered a decision holding Miggy and Laida administratively liable for grave misconduct and accordingly imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. A few weeks later, the OMB issued a separate resolution finding probable cause against them for violation of Section 29 of R.A. No. 9165. Aggrieved, Miggy and Laida filed before the Supreme Court the following: (i) a Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing the OMB’s decision finding them administratively liable for grave misconduct; and (ii) a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari assailing the OMB’s resolution finding probable cause against them. Were the remedies availed of by Miggy and Laida proper? Explain briefly. (5 points)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the remedies availed of by Miggy and Laida were not proper. Under jurisprudence, an administrative decision of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing dismissal is appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43. On the
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What is the proper procedural remedy to appeal an administrative decision of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing dismissal?
Administrative decisions of the Ombudsman in disciplinary cases are appealable exclusively to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43.
Which judicial remedy must be filed to challenge an Ombudsman resolution finding probable cause in a criminal case?
Ombudsman resolutions finding probable cause in criminal cases are assailable before the Supreme Court via Rule 65 certiorari.
Can an Ombudsman resolution finding probable cause in a criminal case be appealed under Rule 45?
Rule 45 applies only to judicial decisions, whereas Ombudsman probable cause determinations are executive and assailable under Rule 65.
Which court has jurisdiction over a Rule 43 petition for review challenging an Ombudsman administrative decision?
Choices available with full access.
What is the legal consequence of filing a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the Supreme Court to challenge an administrative Ombudsman ruling?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Administrative Case Appeals
Under the doctrine established in Fabian v. Desierto, administrative disciplinary decisions and orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are appealable exclusively to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This procedural rule applies to all administrative cases where the Ombudsman finds a public officer administratively liable and imposes disciplinary penalties such as dismissal from service. Resorting directly to the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to challenge an administrative Ombudsman decision is improper.
2. Criminal Probable Cause
Resolutions rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman determining probable cause or dismissing criminal complaints are non-disciplinary executive determinations. Under settled jurisprudence, an Ombudsman resolution finding probable cause in a criminal proceeding cannot be appealed under Rule 43 or Rule 45. The proper and exclusive judicial remedy to assail an Ombudsman resolution on criminal probable cause is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 filed directly before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
3. Improper Procedural Remedies
Applying the wrong procedural remedy to challenge Ombudsman rulings results in outright dismissal by appellate courts. When aggrieved public officers swap the appropriate modes of review—such as filing a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court for an administrative disciplinary decision, or filing a Rule 45 petition for review for a criminal probable cause finding—they violate mandatory jurisdictional rules. Strict adherence to proper appellate modes ensures orderly judicial review and maintains the distinct constitutional and statutory boundaries governing Ombudsman administrative and criminal proceedings.