MANUEL BAVIERA, petitioner, vs. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA, in his capacity as Graft Investiati!n an" #r!sec$ti!n O%cer II& MAR' (U(AN (. GUILLERMO, in her capacity as Direct!r, #re)i*inary Investiati!n an" A"*inistrative A"+$"icati!n B$rea$B& #ELAGIO (. A#O(TOL, in his capacity as Assistant O*-$"s*an, #AMO& ORLANDO . A(IMIRO, in his capacity as Assistant O*-$"s*an f!r the Mi)itary an" Other La/ Enf!rce*ent O%ces& an" MA. MEREDITA( N. GUTIERREZ 0Then1 Un"ersecretary, Depart*ent !f 2$stice, respondents. G.R. N!. 345657 Oct!-er 38, 8664 FACTS: Manuel V. Baviera fled several complaints against ocers or directors o te Standard Cartered Ban! "SCB#, $ilippine Branc, including Sridar %aman, an &ndian national 'o 'as te Cie Finance (cer o te )an!, as respondents 'it te Securities and *+cange Commission "S*C#, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas "BS$#, Pilipinas "BS$#, Anti Mone- aundering Council "AMC#, /ational a)or %elations Commission "/%C#, and te 0epartment o 1ustice "0(1#. Baviera claimed tat e 'as a ormer emplo-ee o te )an!, and at te same time, an investor 'o 'as victimi2ed )- te ocers or directors o SCB, all o 'om conspired 'it one anoter in derauding im as 'ell as te investing pu)lic )- soliciting unds in unregistered and unautori2ed oreign stoc!s and securities. (n Septem)er 34, 5667, Baviera re8uested te Secretar- o 1ustice or te issuance o a 9old 0eparture (rder "90(# against some o te ocers and directors o SCB, including %aman. Said 90( 'as granted )- te 0(1. Mean'ile, Secretar- 0atumanong 'ent to Vienna, Vienna, Austria, Austria, to attend attend a coneren conerence. ce. ndersec ndersecret retarar- Mercedi Merceditas tas /avarro;ut /avarro;utierr ierre2 e2 'as designated as Acting Secretar- o te 0(1. <en %aman arrived at te /ino- A8uino &nternational Airport "/A&A# or is trip to Singapore, e 'as appreended )- B& agents and /A&A ocials )ased on te 90( o te Secretar- o 1ustice. 9o'ever, te ne+t da-, Septem)er 5=, 5667, %aman 'as a)le to leave te countr-. &t turned out tat Acting Secretar- o 1ustice Merceditas /. ;utierre2 ad ver)all- allo'ed te departure o %aman. (n te same da-, %aman 'rote Secretar- 0atumanong or te liting o te 90(. Acting Secretar- ;utierre2 issued an (rder allo'ing %aman to leave te countr-. &n said (rder, se stated tat te Cie State $rosecutor ad indicated tat e interposed no o)>ection to te travel o %aman to Singapore. Baviera ten fled a ComplaintAdavit 'it te (ce (ce o te te (m)uds (m)udsman man carg carging ing nder ndersec secre retar tar- Ma. Merced Mercedita itas s /. ;utier ;utierre re2 2 or violation o Section 7"a#, "e#, and "># o %epu)lic Act "%A# "%A# /o. 763=, as amended. Tis 'as dismissed )- te (m)udsman or insucienc- o evidence. Baviera fled a Motion or %econsideration 'ic 'as denied or lac! o merit. Baviera ten fled a petition or certiorari under rule ?@ in te CA. 9o'ever, te CA issued a %esolution dismissing te petition on te ground tat te proper remed- 'as to fle a petition or certiorari 'it certiorari 'it te Supreme Court under %ule ?@ o te %ules o Court, conorma)l- 'it te ruling o tis Cour Courtt in Enem Enemec ecio io v. Ofce Ofce o the the Ombu Ombuds dsma man n . $etit etitiioner oner fled fled a moti motio on or reconsideration, reconsideration, insisting tat is petition or certiorari in certiorari in te CA under %ule ?@ 'as in accor accordan dance ce 'it te rulin ruling g in Fabian Fabian v. Desierto Desierto.. 9e insi insist sted ed tat tat te te (ce (ce o te te (m)udsma (m)udsman n is a 8uasi>ud 8uasi>udicia iciall agencagenc- o te governm government, ent, and under under Batas Pambansa Bilang 35=, Bilang 35=, te CA as concurrent >urisdiction 'it te Supreme Court over a petition or certiorari under certiorari under %ule ?@ o te %ules o Court. 9e asserted tat te fling o is petition or certiorari 'it certiorari 'it te CA conormed to te esta)lised >udicial polic- o ierarc- o courts as e+plained )- tis Court in People v. Cuaresma. Cuaresma . CA issued a %esolution %esolution den-ing te motion, olding tat te ruling in Fabian v. Desierto is Desierto is not not applic applica)l a)le, e, as it applie applies s onlonl- in appeal appeals s rom rom resol resoluti utions ons o te (m)uds (m)udsman man in administrative disciplinar- cases. Te remed- o te aggrieved part- rom resolutions o te (m)udsman in criminal cases is to fle a petition or certiorari in certiorari in tis Court, and not in
te CA. Baviera ten fled 'it te SC a petition or revie' on certiorari under %ule @ assailing, among oters, tat te CA seriousl- erred in not ta!ing cogni2ant o te petition or certiorari. &SS*: <eter te petition or certiorari fled )- petitioner in te CA 'as te proper remed- to assail te resolution o te (ce o te (m)udsman. 9*0: /o. &n 3===, te SC ruled in irol! "r. v. Del #osario tat te remed- o te aggrieved part- rom a resolution o te (ce o te (m)udsman fnding te presence or a)sence o pro)a)le cause in criminal cases 'as to fle a petition or certiorari under %ule ?@ in the (. Te Court reiterated its ruling in $ui%on v. Desierto and irol! "r. v. Del #osario. And on Fe)ruar- 55, 566?, in Ponte&os v. Ofce o the Ombudsman, te Court ruled tat te remed- to callenge te %esolution o te (m)udsman at te conclusion o a preliminar- investigation 'as to fle a petition or certiorari in tis Court under %ule ?@. &n Estrada v. Desierto, te Court re>ected te contention o petitioner terein tat petition or certiorari under %ule ?@ assailing te (rder%esolution o te (MB in criminal cases sould )e fled in te CA, conorma)l- 'it te principle o ierarc- o courts. Te Court e+plained tat te appe))ate c!$rt9s +$ris"icti!n e:ten"s !n)y t! "ecisi!ns !f the O%ce !f the O*-$"s*an in a"*inistrative cases. &n te Fabian case, SC ruled tat appeals rom decisions o te (ce o te (m)udsman in administrative disciplinar' cases sould )e ta!en to te Court o Appeals under %ule 7 o te 3== %ules o Civil $rocedure. Dui2on and te su)se8uent case o (endo%a)*rce v. Ofce o the Ombudsman +,isa'as- drove ome te point tat te remed- o aggrieved parties rom resolutions o te (ce o te (m)udsman fnding pro)a)le cause in criminal cases or non administrative cases, 'en tainted 'it grave a)use o discretion, is to fle an original action or certiorari 'it SC and not 'it te Court o Appeals. &n cases 'en te aggrieved part- is 8uestioning te (ce o te (m)udsmanEs fnding o lack o pro)a)le cause, as in tis case, tere is li!e'ise te remed- o certiorari under %ule ?@ to )e fled 'it tis Court and not 'it te Court o Appeals ollo'ing SC ruling in Pere% v. Ofce o the Ombudsman.