Baviera v. Zoleta

BAVIERA V.
ZOLETA
G.R. No. 169098 | October 12, 2006
FACTS:
Manuel V. Baviera filed several complaints against officers or directors of the Standard
Chartered Bank (SCB), Philippine Branch, including Sridhar Raman, an Indian national who was
the Chief Finance Officer of the bank. Baviera claimed that he was a former employee of the
bank, and at the same time, an investor who was victimized by the officers or directors of SCB,
all of whom conspired with one another in defrauding him as well as the investing public by
soliciting funds in unregistered and unauthorized foreign stocks and securities.
Baviera requested the Secretary of Justice for the issuance of a Hold Departure Order (HDO)
against some of the officers and directors of SCB, including Raman. On September 26, 2003,
Secretary of Justice Simeon Datumanong issued HDO No. 0193. A copy of the order was
served on the Bureau of Immigration (BI) for implementation. On the same day, the BI issued an
Order implementing that of the Secretary of Justice.
Meanwhile, Secretary Datumanong went to Vienna, Austria, to attend a conference.

Undersecretary Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez was designated as Acting Secretary of the DOJ.
On September 28, 2003, a Sunday, Raman arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
(NAIA) for his trip to Singapore but was apprehended by BI agents and NAIA officials based on
the HDO. However, the next day, Raman was able to leave the country. He was to attend a
conference in Singapore and to return to the Philippines on October 2, 2003.
It turned out that Acting Secretary of Justice Merceditas N. Gutierrez had verbally allowed the
departure of Raman. On the same day, Raman wrote Secretary Datumanong for the lifting of
the HDO.
Thereafter, Baviera filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman charging
Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez for violation of Section 3(a), (e), and (j) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 3019, as amended.
In his complaint that upon verbal instruction of respondent Gutierrez to the BI agents and NAIA
officials, Raman was allowed to leave the country despite the HDO issued by Secretary Simeon
Datumanong. He averred that the actuations of respondent Gutierrez were illegal, highly
irregular and questionable. Baviera further alleged that the verbal special permission granted to
Raman by respondent Gutierrez was illegal as there is no specific law or DOJ rule allowing the
grant of special permission or exception to an HDO. Worse, the complainant alleged,
respondent Gutierrez made her verbal order on a weekend, on the basis of allegedly strong
representations made by Raman. Respondent Gutierrez thus displayed arrogance of power and
insolence of office, thereby extending unwarranted preference, benefits and advantage to
Raman.
Respondent Gutierrez denied the allegations against her. She averred that she did not violate
any law or rule, in allowing Raman to leave the country. She merely upheld his rights to travel
as guaranteed under the Constitution. Moreover, the DOJ may allow persons covered by HDOs
to travel abroad, for a specific purpose and for a specific period of time.
She further averred that in as Acting Secretary, she has the power and authority to perform all
official acts that a Department Secretary. She requested the Office of the Ombudsman to
dismiss the case against her stating that there is no basis for the complaint for violation of
Section 3(a) of RA No. 3019, as amended, because she never persuaded, induced nor
influence any public officer to violate the rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority; that the is baseless, the complainant has not sustained any injury by reason of the
travel order; and that the travel authority has become moot and academic with the return of Mr.
Raman and the issuance of Secretary Datumanong, lifting the HDO on the ground that "there is
no ground for the continued enforcement of the HDO.”
Graft Investigation and Prosecutor Officer Rolando Zoleta recommended that the criminal
complaint against respondent Gutierrez for violation of RA No. 3019 be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence. The Assistant Ombudsman recommended that the resolution be
approved. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, Orlando C. Casimiro, who was authorized
by the Ombudsman to act on the recommendation, approved the same.
Baviera filed a motion for reconsideration. Acting on the motion, Zoleta issued a Resolution,
recommending its denial for lack of merit. Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro again
approved the recommendation.
Baviera filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in the CA. The
CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that the proper remedy was to file
a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting that his petition for certiorari in the CA
under Rule 65 was in accordance with the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto. He insisted that the
Office of the Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial agency of the government, and under Batas
Pambansa Bilang 129, the CA has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
CA issued a Resolution denying the motion, holding that the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto is not
applicable, as it applies only in appeals from resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases.
Baviera filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court,
assailing the CA resolutions.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the CA was the proper
remedy to assail the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman
HELD: NO. Respondent Gutierrez contends that the proper remedy of petitioner to assail the
Resolutions of the Ombudsman finding no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019,
Section 3(a), (e) and (j) was to file a petition for certiorari with this Court, not with the CA. In
1999, this Court ruled in Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario that the remedy of the aggrieved party from a
resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause
in criminal cases was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in this Court. The Court
reiterated its ruling in Kuizon v. Desierto and Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario. And on February 22, 2006,
in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court ruled that the remedy to challenge the
Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a preliminary investigation was to file a
petition for certiorari in this Court under Rule 65.
In Estrada v. Desierto, the Court rejected the contention of petitioner therein that petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Order/Resolution of the OMB in criminal cases should be
filed in the CA, conformably with the principle of hierarchy of courts. The appellate court
correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases. In the Fabian case, we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
As this Court had already resolved said issue of jurisdiction in the above-cited cases, it is a
salutary and necessary judicial practice to apply the rulings therein to the subject petition. Stare
decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against the petitioner.

Baviera v. Zoleta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baviera v. Zoleta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baviera v. Zoleta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAVIERA V.

Meanwhile, Secretary Datumanong went to Vienna, Austria, to attend a conference.

You might also like