Lex Rex Ph

Ombudsman v. CA and Binay Jr. Digest

GR 217126-27, 10 Nov 2015


Ombudsman Conchita issued a preventive suspension order (PSO) against Binay Jr. et al of Plunder and violation RA 3019 in connection with the Makati Parking Building.

Binay filed a petition for certiorari (PFC) before CA seeking to nullify the PSO and praying for TRO/WPI issuance against the Ombudsman. CA granted Binay’s petition on the grounds of condonation doctrine, et al.

Ombudsman Conchita filed before SC assailing the jurisdiction of the CA to grant TRO because Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act of 1997 (RA 6770), paragraph 2: “No court shall hear any appeal… against the decision of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.”


Does CA has subject matter jurisdiction over Binay’s petition for certiorari?


Yes. Ombudsman Conchita’s quoted provision under the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770) is unconstitutional because it increases the SC’s jurisdiction without its consent. Similar to Fabian v. Desierton, which invalidated Section 27 Paragraph 4.

Section 14 Par 2, RA 6770 limits the remedy against “decision or findings” of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal, thus unconstitutional.

Constitutional questions not raised in the regular and orderly procedure are ordinarily rejected, but the Court ex mero motu (out of mere impulse) may take cognizance of a case with the lack of jurisdiction at any point.

The Court has ruled after Fabian that petitions for certiorari against unappealable issuances of the Ombudsman should be filed before→the CA, and not directly before the Supreme Court. In this case, Binay filed the Rule 65 petition for certiorari correctly before CA.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Norberto Vitangcol vs. People

G.R. No. 207406, Jan. 13, 2016 Lesson: “Marriage License cannot be found” issued by Civil Registrar is not sufficient to invalidate the first marriage and exculpate Vitangcol from the crime of Bigamy.

Read More »

Balogbog vs. CA

When marriage contract was destroyed by war Facts Petitioners are the children of the deceased Basilio and Genoveva Balogbog. They have an older brother, Gavino, who died in 1935, ahead of their

Read More »

Icon vs. NLIC Digest

Icon Development Corp vs. National Life Insurance Corp (NLIC)GR 220686 Facts Icon obtained several loans from NLIC. To secure its loans, Icon mortgaged several of its properties in Makati City and Tayabas, Quezon. Icon

Read More »

Grave abuse of discretion

Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered ‘grave,’ discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner

Read More »

CHR vs. Civil Service Commission

Facts Atty Pacete opt for an optional retirement as Division Chief of CHR in 1989. The CHR and GSIS had conflicting decisions regarding the approval – CHR approved but GSIS won’t qualify

Read More »

Living Law

It is high time to amend our Civil and Family Laws to conform to societal sentiment and breathe life to what Justice Louis D. Brandeis calls “The Living Law”. – Atty. Eduardo

Read More »