LANTING VS. OMBUDSMAN G.R. NO. 141426, MAY.

6, 2005 (OMBUDSMAN)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolutions dated Sept. 9, 1999 and Jan. 6, 2000 of the CA
dismissing petitioners petition for certiorari and mandamus
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Zenaida F. Lanting, petitioner, was the Adm. Officer IV for the City Council of Manila. She filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint dated May 12, 1998, charging then Manila Vice-Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr., now City
Mayor, Emmanuel Sison, Secretary to the City Council, and Charito Rumbo, HRM Officer III, herein respondents with
violation of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act)
She alleged that these city officials unlawfully and feloniously appointed Ernesto Saw, Jr. a Chinese citizen
working in Taiwan, and brother-in-law of Charito Rumbo, to the position of Researcher in the City Council.
Petitioner further alleged that respondents fraudulently effected the publication of a vacant position (Adm. Officer
V) in the City Council, in violation of RA No. 7041. She also questioned other appointments.
The Graft Investigator Officer I, issued a Resolution recommending that petitioners complaint be dismissed. It
was reviewed and approved by the Ombudsman.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was likewise denied by the Ombudsman.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus and was dismissed. An MR was
also filed but it was also dismissed.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE/S
Did the court of appeals gravely err in dismissing the petitioners petition for certiorari and mandamus on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction by invoking Sec. 14, Par. 2, of RA 6770?
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
No.
Petitioners complaint affidavit before the Ombudsman is for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt practices Acts. It
is not an administrative complaint. Nowhere in her complaint did she allege administrative offenses, such as
dishonesty or misconduct on the part of respondents.
It bears stressing that the allegations in petitioners complaint describe resondents actuations as wilful, felonious,
unlawful, odious and despicable criminal activities.
Considering that petitioners complaint is criminal in nature, this Court has the sole authority to review the
Ombudsmans Resolutions on pure question of law as expressly mandated in Sec. 14, 2 nd paragraph of RA 6770
which provides:
Sec. 14. Restricitons.XXX
No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except
the Supreme Court on pure question of law.
(Administrative cases may be taken to the CA)