Scribd
Upload
62 views2 pages

Certiorari in The CA (And Motion To Consolidate His Case and Bunag-Cabacungan's) - They Denied and

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over criminal cases from the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically, in this case, the Court of Appeals improperly reviewed the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman's decision regarding a land dispute between Feliciano Duyon and Eleonor Bunag-Cabacungan. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' findings that there was no evidence Bunag-Cabacungan directly participated in the erroneous land title issuance or committed prohibited acts in her official duties. Therefore, the administrative charge against her was also dismissed.

Uploaded by

Ayen Rodriguez Magnaye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views2 pages

Certiorari in The CA (And Motion To Consolidate His Case and Bunag-Cabacungan's) - They Denied and

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over criminal cases from the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically, in this case, the Court of Appeals improperly reviewed the criminal aspect of the Ombudsman's decision regarding a land dispute between Feliciano Duyon and Eleonor Bunag-Cabacungan. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' findings that there was no evidence Bunag-Cabacungan directly participated in the erroneous land title issuance or committed prohibited acts in her official duties. Therefore, the administrative charge against her was also dismissed.

Uploaded by

Ayen Rodriguez Magnaye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

DUYON v.

CA

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 inder Emancipation patent
which had been issued to Eleonor P. Bunag-Cabacungan. Duyon discovered the double registration, he
filed a complaint-affidavit, An administrative aspect: for misconduct and abuse of authority; and A
criminal aspect: Violation of RA 3019 and Falsification of Public Documents (under the RPC). Bunag-
Cabacungan was an employee of Municipal Agriculture Office of Nueva Ecija under the Department of
Agriculture. In defense, Joint Counter-Affidavit denied accusations and alleged that he was never
deprived of possession and he actually applied for a bigger area 18,257 sqm than the subject land of
Duyon which is only 6,358 sqm. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon recommends 6 months
suspension without pay for simple misconduct and the filing of Information for Violation of RA 3019,
Sec. 3(e). Subsequently, Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the Cabacungan spouses and Partial
Motion for Reconsideration by Duyon - OMB for Luzon in a Joint Order modified the Decision and
Resolution, dismissed the charges against the husband, Eutiquio Cabacungan and reduced the
suspension to 3 months for Eleonor Bunag-Cabacungan. And it maintained the order to the Prosecutor
to file an Information against Eleonor. Eleonor Bunag-Cabacungan filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari before the CA; however the CA dismissed [in a Resolution] for the defect in using the petition
for certiorari against the assailed Decision and Joint-Order. Also, Duyon filed his own Petition for
Certiorari in the CA (and motion to consolidate his case and Bunag-Cabacungan’s). They denied and
dismissed Duyon’s Petition and Motion for Reconsideration that was subsequent to the dismissal of the
said own Petition for Certiorari CA held that Under the current case law, all appeal from decisions shall
be taken to the CA under Rule 43 of Rules of Court (Appeal from CTA and Quasi-Judicial agencies to CA)
and the decisions of the OMB in criminal cases are unappealable; probable cause can be reviewed if
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. CA reversed and set aside the assailed Decision and Joint Order
and dismissed the complaint filed by Duyon against Bunag-Cabacungan. With regard the criminal aspect,
It held that there is no probable cause; the elements were not present (of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019). CA said
that there is no conspiracy between her and the DAR. Duyon is insisting the Fabian case that ruled that
CA can only review administrative disciplinary cases in the OMB while Bunag-Cabacungan insist that
there is an Rule III Administrative Order No. 07 of the OMB amendment in 2003 – the phrase “ in all
other cases”removes the distinction between admin case and criminal case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction over the decisions made by the OMB with respect to
criminal cases .

RULING: No, CA has no jurisdinction. Duyon was correct in his insistence that the Court of Appeals has
no jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman case. "The Court of Appeals 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. Bunag-Cabacungan’s contention is ludicrous. It must be stressed
that Rule III is for administrative cases and there is Rule II that governs criminal cases in Administrative
Order No. 07. As such the ruling of the CA on the criminal aspect of the case is void.
HOWEVER, The Court, shall, resolve the issue raised by the petition in this case, specially Duyon's prayer
for this Court to order the denial of the petition for review filed by Bunag-Cabacungan before the Court
of Appeals, relying upon the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which are pertinent to the
resolution of the administrative charge against respondent Bunag Cabacungan. As the Court of Appeals
has determined, there were no specific allegations regarding Bunag-Cabacungan's actual or direct
participation in the erroneous issuance of the emancipation patent, nor was it specifically shown that
she committed prohibited acts in the performance of her official duties or public functions. The Court of
Appeals also found no evidence to establish that she acted in conspiracy with the officials of the DAR,
which was the government

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy