Baviera V. Zoleta

FACTS:
Manuel V. Baviera filed several complaints against officers or directors of the Standard
Chartered Bank (SCB) including Raman, an Indian National, he is the Chief Finance Office of the
Bank. Baviera claimed that he was a former employee of the bank and at the same time he
was victimized by the officers of directors of SCB by defrauding him as well as well as the
investing public by soliciting funds in an unregistered and unauthorized foreign stocks and
securities.
On September 18, 2003, Baviera, through counsel requested the Secretary of Justice for the
issuance of a Hold Departure Order against some of the officers and directors of SCB, including
Raman. The said Hold Departure Order was issued by Secretary of Justice Datumanng.
Meanwhile, Secretary Datumanong went to Vienna to attend a conference. Undersecretary
Gutierrez was designated as acting secretary of the DOJ.
Sometime on September 28, 2003, Raman was apprehended by the BI agents at NAIA terminal.
He was supposed to go to a business meeting in Singapore. He was later on permitted by Acting
Secretary Gutierrez to go to the same. He was verbally allowed to leave the country. Thereafter
Acting Secretary issued an order allowing the departure of Raman, he stated therein that the
Chief State Prosecutor interposed no objection to the said travel.
Petitioner Baviera argued that the said verbal instruction of Gutierrez was highly irregular and
illegal as a HDO was already previously issued by the DOJ Secretary Datumanong. Baviera
further said that the said act was questionable for the following reasons:
1. There was an issuance of an HDO order by DOJ Sec. Datumanong

2. BID Commissioner Danilo Cueto had ordered the implementation of the said HDO
3. That when Raman was apprehended in the NAIA, Gutierrez admitted that she
interceded on behalf of Raman and she allowed him to leave the country.
4. The appeal of Raman to leave the country was only made verbally
5. There is no written application for temporary stay of the HDO in respect to Raman’s
departure
6. There was no written order by Gutierrez allowing Raman to leave
7. Gutierrez claims that she cleared the matter with DOJ Sec. Datumanong however there
is no proof to such claim
8. That it was obvious that Gutierrez went out of her way to accommodate the Indian
national on a Sunday.
xxx
Baviera further alleged that the there is no DOJ rule allowing the grant of the said special
permission or exception to an HDO, thus the said act of Gutierrez was illegal. Thus, Baviera
filed a complaint against Gutierrez for violating Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019.
Gutierrez denied the aforementioned allegations, and she stated that she merely upheld
Raman’s right to travel as guaranteed under the constitution. Said right extents to all
residents regardless of Nationality. Moreover, the DOJ may allow persons covered by HDOs
to travel abroad for specific purposes. Gutierrez further raised that an Acting Secretary has
the power and authority to perform all official acts that a Department Secretary, if personally
present, could lawfully do to exercise sound discretion under the certain circumstances. She
said that she could have lifted the HDO on the ground that Raman has an urgent official
business to do, but she did not do so in deference to the Secretary who issued it but instead
allowed him to travel for a specific purpose and period. Said HDO was also lifted by
Secretary Datumanong when he arrived as he founds no sufficient ground for its continued
enforcement. She moved for the dismissal for the complaint.
Baviera replied that the main issue against her is not an individual’s constitutional right to
travel nor the wide discretionary powers of the DOJ to grant special permits to travel to
individuals subject of HDO but her abuse of discretionary powers. Baviera raised that
Gutierrez gave unwarranted benefit to the counsel of Baviera and Baviera when she
allowed the verbal plea on a Sunday.
Graft Investigation and Prosecutor Officer Rolando Zoleta signed a Resolution

recommending 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.
On November 16, 2004, Baviera filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure in the CA, assailing the resolutions of the Ombudsman. However, 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
ISSUE:
Whether the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the CA was the proper remedy to
assail the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman
Whether respondent officials committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or

lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal complaint of petitioner against respondent
Acting Secretary of Justice Gutierrez for lack of probable cause.
RULING:
1. No. 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 is to
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court. Petitioner’s contention
that the certiorari under Rule 65 should first be filed with the CA as a doctrine of hierarchy
of court is untenable as it was a previously laid down in jurisprudence that the Appellate
court extends only its jurisdiction to the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases and that disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under rule
43of the Civil Procedure. In cases when the aggrieved party is questioning the Office of
the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause, as in this case, there is likewise the
remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with this Court and not with the Court of
Appeals following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman. Stare
decisis et non quieta movere - Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.
2. The Court finds that petitioner failed to establish that the respondent officials committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of
discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction. he Court has reviewed the assailed resolutions of the Office of the
Ombudsman, and finds that petitioner likewise failed to establish probable cause for
violation of Sections 3(a), (e) and (j) of RA No. 3019. Indeed, in the absence of a clear
case of abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the exercise of the
Ombudsman's discretion, who, based on his own findings and deliberate consideration
of the case, either dismisses a complaint or proceeds with it.

Baviera V. Zoleta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baviera V. Zoleta

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

FACTS:

1. There was an issuance of an HDO order by DOJ Sec. Datumanong

Graft Investigation and Prosecutor Officer Rolando Zoleta signed a Resolution

Whether respondent officials committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or

You might also like