Cabrera vs Lapid

CABRERA vs LAPID Facts:  The

instant petition originated from a Complaint-Affidavit filed in November 1995 by petitioner Amelia M. Cabrera with the Offie of the Omb!dsman. "n her #-page affidavit$ petitioner a!sed respondents of violating %etion #&e' of the Anti-(raft and Corr!pt )raties At and Artile #*+ of the ,evised )enal Code. "n her Complaint-Affidavit$ petitioner stated that she entered into a lease agreement with the M!niipality of %asm!an over a trat o f land for the p!rpose of devoting devo ting it to fishpond operations. A month later$ petitioner learned from newspaper reports of the impending demolition of her fishpond as it was  p!rportedly illegal and bloed the flow of the )asa ,iver. ,iver. espite pleas from petitioner$ petitioner$ respondents ordered the destr!tion of petitioner/s fishpond. The property was demolished by dynamite blasting. (overnor 0apid also arg!ed that !nder the law$ the epartment of Agri!lt!re &A' is the government ageny a!thoried to enter into liensing agreements for fishpond operations$ and as per ertifiation by the A ,egional iretor$ petitioner/s fishpond operation was not overed by a fishpond lease agreement or  appliation. On May 1992$ the Omb!dsman iss!ed the assailed ,esol!tion$ dismissing petitioner/s omplaint. The dismissal was based on the delaration that the fishpond was a n!isane per se  and$ th!s$ may be abated )etitioner so!ght reonsiderat reonsideration ion of the  by respondents in the e3erise of the polie power of the %tate. )etitioner ,esol!tion$ arg!ing that !nder %e. 1+9 of ,ep!bli At &,.A.' No. 412$ otherwise nown as the 0oal (overnment Code of 1991$ the e3l!sive a!thority to grant fishery privileges is vested in the m!niipalities. 6!t the Omb!dsman affirmed its May 1992 ,esol!tion. Th!s$ petitioner elevated the matter to the Co!rt via a petition for review on ertiorari !nder ,!le +5. Issue:  7ON

the filing of petitioner of the petition for review on ertiorari to see reversal of the ,esol!tion of the Omb!dsman was orret

7here 7here grave grave ab!se ab!se of disre disretio tion n amo!nt amo!nting ing to la la or e3ess e3ess of 8!risd 8!risdit ition ion taints taints the findings findings of the Omb!dsman on the e3istene of probable a!se$ the aggrieved party may file a petition for ertiorari !nder ,!le 25. The remedy from resol!tions of the Omb!dsman in preliminary investigations of riminal ases is a petition for  ertiorari !nder ,!le 25$ not a petition for review on ertiorari !nder ,!le +5.

Held:

"n this ase$ petitioner has taen the position that the Omb!dsman has deided !estions of s!bstane ontrary to law and the appliable deisions of the %!preme Co!rt. That is a gro!nd !nder a ,!le +5 petition. "ndeed$ from a reading of  the assignment of errors$ it is lear that petitioner does not imp!te grave ab!se of disretion to the Omb!dsman in iss!ing the assailed ,esol!tion and Order. Order. ,ather$ she merely !estions his findings and onl!sions. As stated earlier$ diret appeal to the %!preme Co!rt via a petition for review on ertiorari is not santioned by any r!le of proed!re. 6y availing of a wrong remedy$ remedy$ the petition sho!ld be dismissed o!tright. 6y grave ab!se of disretion is meant apriio!s and whimsial e3erise of 8!dgment as is e!ivalent to la of  8!risdition. Mere ab!se ab!se of disretion is not not eno!gh. "t m!st be grave ab!se ab!se of disretion as when when the power is e3erised in an arbitrary or despoti manner by reason of passion or personal hostility$ hostility$ and m!st be so patent and so gross as to amo!nt to an evasion of a positive d!ty or to a virt!al ref!sal to perform the d!ty en8oined or to at at all in ontemplation of law. (rave ab!se of disretion sho!ld be differentiated from an error in 8!dgment. An error of 8!dgment is one whih the o!rt may ommit in the e3erise of its 8!risdition$ and whih error is reversible only by an appeal. As long as the o!rt ats within its 8!risdition$ any alleged errors ommitted in the e3erise of its disretion will amo!nt to nothing more than mere errors of 8!dgment$ orretible by an appeal or a petition for review !nder ,!le +5 of the ,!les of  Co!rt. An error of 8!risdition is one where the at omplained of was iss!ed by the o!rt witho!t or in e3ess of   8!risdition and and whih error is orretible orretible only by the e3traordinary e3traordinary writ of ertiorari. Absent any grave ab!se of disretion tainting it$ the o!rts will not interfere with the Omb!dsman/s s!pervision and ontrol over the preliminary investigation ond!ted by him. "t is beyond the ambit of this Co!rt to review the e3erise of disretion of the Omb!dsman in prose!ting or dismissing a omplaint filed before it. The r!le is based not only !pon respet for the investigatory and prose!tory powers granted by the Constit!tion to the Offie of the Omb!dsman  b!t !pon pratiality pratiality as well.