Hidalgo v. Office of the Ombudsman
This is a civil case involving Maria Concepcion Hidalgo and the Office of the Ombudsman, with Reynaldo J. Flores as a respondent. The Supreme Court denied the petition of Hidalgo and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) to uphold the dismissal of Hidalgo's complaint by the Office of the Ombudsman. The dismissal was due to the prematurity of the complaint, as Hidalgo still had an adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body. The CA correctly applied Section 4 (a), Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman and Section 20 (1) of Republic Act No. 6770, which allows for the outright dismissal of a complaint when there is an adequate remedy in another body.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243609. February 18, 2019.]
MARIA CONCEPCION HIDALGO, petitioner,vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND REYNALDO J. FLORES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243609 (Maria Concepcion Hidalgo v. Office of the Ombudsman and Reynaldo J. Flores)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 30, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 11, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141767 for failure of petitioner Maria Concepcion Hidalgo to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the outright dismissal of her complaint 4 by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman).
As correctly ruled by the CA, under Section 4 (a), Rule III 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman, 6 in relation to Section 20 (1) of Republic Act No. 6770, 7 otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," the Ombudsman may dismiss outright a complaint filed before it on the ground of prematurity when the complainant has an adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body, 8 as in this case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-27.
2.Id. at 31-39. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Rosmari. D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
3. Not attached to the rollo but referenced in the petition. See id. at 12.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 17-03, entitled "AMENDMENT OF RULE III ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 07," approved on September 15, 2003. Section 4 (a), Rule III thereof provides:
Section 4. Evaluation. — Upon receipt of the complaint, the same shall be evaluated to determine whether the same may be:
a) dismissed outright for any of the grounds stated under Section 20 of RA 6770, provided, however, that the dismissal thereof is not mandatory and shall be discretionary on the part of the Ombudsman or the Deputy Ombudsman concerned[.]
6. Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 07, entitled "RE: RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN," approved on April 10, 1990.
7. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on November 17, 1989. Section 20 (1) thereof reads:
Section 20. Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman may not conduct the necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes that:
(1) The complainant has an adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body[.]
8. See rollo, p. 37.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU