Duyon v. CA
Hence, this
G.R. No. 172218
Nov. 26, 2014
Doctrine: The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases only. Decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal
cases are unappealable. However, a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 may be filed when the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence
of probable cause (in criminal cases) are tainted with GADALEJ.
ER: Duyon was issued a CLT for the land he was tilling since 1957.
However, it was also registered under the name of Eleonor P. Bunag-
Cabacungan and her husband. Eleonor worked in the Department of
Agriculture. Duyon filed a complaint-affidavit to the Deputy OMB of
Luzon with 2 aspects: (1) administrative aspect (misconduct and abuse
of authority) and (2) criminal aspect (Falsification of Public
Documents and violation of Sec. 3(e) of the R.A. 3019).
Initially, the OMB of Luzon, in its Decision and Resolution,
recommended suspension of the spouses for 6 months (admin aspect)
and recommended filing of Information against the spouses (criminal
aspect). However, the OMB of Luzon subsequently issued a Joint-
Order lessening the suspension to 3 months and exonerating the
husband; it retained its recommendation to file an Information against
the spouses. Both parties filed a petition for review on certiorari with
the CA. Eleonor assailed only the admin aspect of the Joint-Order.
The CA dismissed Duyon’s petition and held that certiorari is an
improper remedy. However, it ruled on both the criminal and
administrative aspect of Eleonor’s petition, and held that there was no
probable case. Duyon filed an MR which was dismissed.
case.
Issue: W/N the CA has jurisdiction over the decisions made by the
OMB with respect to criminal cases (i.e. W/N the CA has jurisdiction
over the criminal aspect of OMB decisions) - NONE
Held/Ratio: The CA has no jurisdiction over the orders, directives or
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-
administrative cases. The SC upheld the case of Fabian which ruled
that the CA’s jurisdiction is limited to the administrative disciplinary
decisions, directives, or orders of the OMB.
 The jurisdiction of the CA extends only to decisions of the Office
of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. (Kuizon v. Hon.
Desierto)
 Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under
Rule 43. (Fabian v. Desierto)
Facts:
 In 1979, Feliciano B. Duyon was issued Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT) over the land he had been tilling since 1957.
 Apparently, the same land was also covered by TCT under
Emancipation patent which had been issued to Eleonor P. Bunag-
Cabacungan.
 Eleonor was an employee of Municipal Agriculture Office of
Nueva Ecija under the Department of Agriculture, while her
husband was an employee of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
 Upon Duyon’s discovery of the double registration, he filed a
complaint-affidavit against Eleanor and her husband for allegedly
taking advantage of their official positions to cause the issuance
of the TCT in their favor.
 o Administrative aspect: for misconduct and abuse of authority;
and
o Criminal aspect: for violation of R.A. 3019 and Falsification
of Public Documents under the RPC
 In their Joint Counter-Affidavit, Spouses Cabacungan denied the
accusations and alleged that:
o Duyon was never deprived of possession.
o An error had been made in the issuance of the Emancipation
Patent, and such was not their fault.
o The DAR Office in Nueva Ecija had already requested for its
correction.
 They also argued that the lot Eleonor applied for had a bigger land
area at 18,257 square meters than the 6,358-square meter subject
land of Duyon.
 The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon issued the
following:
o Decision for the Administrative aspect: OMB recommended
6-month suspension without pay for simple misconduct
o Resolution for the Criminal aspect: recommended the filing
of Information for Violation of R.A. 3019, Sec. 3(e)
 Upon MR filed by the Cabacungan spouses and Partial MR by
Duyon, OMB for Luzon issued a Joint Order and modified the
Decision and Resolution, he:
o Dismissed the charges against the husband, Eutiquio
Cabacungan and
o Reduced the suspension to 3 months for Eleonor
o It maintained the order to the Prosecutor to file an Information
against Eleonor.
 Accordingly, Eleonor filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari before the CA seeking the reversal of the former
Decision and Joint Order with respect to the administrative
aspect of the case.
 Duyon filed his own Petition for Certiorari before the CA
 He also filed a motion to consolidate his and Eleonor’s petitions.
 The CA dismissed Duyon's petition for certiorari and his motion
to consolidate the cases because of the following reasons:
o Duyon availed of the wrong mode of appeal with respect to
the administrative disciplinary aspect of the case.
o The CA also dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction with
respect to the criminal aspect of the case.
o It held that under case law, all appeals from decisions of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases shall be
taken to the CA under Rule 43; on the other hand, decisions
of the Ombudsman in criminal cases are unappealable.
o However, where the findings of the Ombudsman on the
existence of probable cause (in criminal cases) are tainted with
GADALEJ, the aggrieved party may file before the SC a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
 As for Eleonor’s petition:
o Even though the issue raised was limited to the administrative
aspect of the case, the CA still ruled on the criminal aspect.
o Administrative Aspect: CA reversed and set aside the
assailed Decision and Joint Order and dismissed the complaint
filed by Duyon against Eleonor.
o Criminal Aspect: It held that there is no probable cause; the
elements were not present (of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019).
o Moreover, the CA found that Duyon failed to present proof of
undue injury he alleged.
 Duyon filed an MR which the CA denied. Hence, this case.
 Duyon based his petition on the Fabian case which ruled that the
CA can only review administrative disciplinary cases from the
OMB.
 On the other hand, Eleonor claimed that the amendment in Rule
III of Administrative Order No. 07 of the OMB in 2003 (the phrase
“in all other cases”) removes the distinction between
administrative case and criminal case.

Issue: W/N the CA has jurisdiction over the decisions made by the
OMB with respect to criminal cases (i.e. W/N the CA has jurisdiction
over the criminal aspect of OMB decisions) - NONE

Held/Ratio: The CA has no jurisdiction over the orders, directives or

decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-
administrative cases.
 The jurisdiction of the CA extends only to decisions of the Office
of the Ombudsman in administrative cases (Kuizon v. Hon.
Desierto)
 Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of
Appeals under Rule 43. (Fabian v. Desierto)
 Hence, the CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders,
directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal
or non-administrative cases.
 As such, the ruling of the CA on the criminal aspect of the case
is void.
 As to the administrative aspect, the SC upheld the CA decision in
that the charge for misconduct in office against Bunag-
Cabacungan was not proven.