Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 206 views

    26 BAVIERA Vs ZOLETA

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    The petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against a public official. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to challenge this dismissal. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the proper procedure is to file a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, when challenging a resolution from the Ombudsman regarding a criminal case. Due to multiple prior cases establishing this precedent, the Supreme Court upheld this procedure based on the doctrine of stare decisis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    26 BAVIERA Vs ZOLETA

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    206 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against a public official. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to challenge this dismissal. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the proper procedure is to file a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, when challenging a resolution from the Ombudsman regarding a criminal case. Due to multiple prior cases establishing this precedent, the Supreme Court upheld this procedure based on the doctrine of stare decisis.

    Original Title

    26 BAVIERA vs ZOLETA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against a public official. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to challenge this dismissal. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the proper procedure is to file a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, when challenging a resolution from the Ombudsman regarding a criminal case. Due to multiple prior cases establishing this precedent, the Supreme Court upheld this procedure based on the doctrine of stare decisis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    206 views1 page

    26 BAVIERA Vs ZOLETA

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    The petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against a public official. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to challenge this dismissal. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the proper procedure is to file a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, when challenging a resolution from the Ombudsman regarding a criminal case. Due to multiple prior cases establishing this precedent, the Supreme Court upheld this procedure based on the doctrine of stare decisis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    26 BAVIERA vs ZOLETA

    Re: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction


    FACTS:

    Baviera filed complaints against officers of Standard Chartered Bank , including one Sridnar Raman, claiming he was
    victimized by the officers by soliciting funds in unregistered and unauthorized foreign stocks and securities. He was
    able to secure a Hold Departure Order [HDO] against some of the complained officers including the Indian national
    Raman. Raman was able to travel out of the country through the verbal order of Acting Secretary of Justice Gutierez.
    Gutierez claims that she only acted within her powers as an Acting Secretary, and that she did not violate any laws in
    allowing such. Baviera filed a criminal case for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against
    Gutierez alleging that the latter acted in grave abuse of her discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
    Gutierez on the other hand averred that absent the element of renumeration there can be no crime under RA 3019.

    The Graft Investigation and Prosecutor Officer Rolando Zoleta signed a resolution recommending the complaint be
    dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

    Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in the CA. CA dismissed the
    petition on the ground that the proper remedy for was to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under
    Rule 65. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pointing out that his petition for certiorari was in accordance
    with previous ruling in Fabian v. Desierto; he insisted that under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the CA had concurrent
    jurisdiction with the SC over petitions of certiorari from the Office on the Ombudsman; and, he asserted that the
    petition conformed to the established judicial policy of hierarchy of Courts. Motion was denied CA claimed that the
    ruling in Fabian only applies to administrative disciplinary cases, hence this petition before the SC.

    ISSUE:

    WON the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the CA was the proper remedy to assail the resolution of the
    Office of the Ombudsman.

    RULING:

    NO. The proper remedy to assail the Resolutions of the Ombudsman finding no probable cause for criminal cases is
    to file a petition for certiorari under rule 65 with the Supreme Court, not with the CA (Tirol Jr. vs. Del Rosario). It
    was reiterated in Kuizon v. Desierto, and in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, the SC ruled that the remedy to
    challenge the Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a preliminary investigation is to file a petition for
    certiorari to the SC under Rule 65. Rulings in Estrada v. Desierto and Kuizon v. Ombudsman ruled that CAs
    jurisdiction only extends to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, and further reiterated
    in future cases of Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas).

    Due to the number of cases that echo the same ruling, the court finds it proper to apply the doctrine of stare decisis et
    non quieta movere, stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.

    You might also like