Remedial Law, 2019 Bar — Question A.7

ESSAY

As a result of an anonymous complaint, Mr. J, a local public official, was held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in Administrative Case No. 1234. As such, he was imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Ombudsman also found probable cause to indict him for violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” in Criminal Case No. 4321. Mr. J moved for the reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision but was denied. Unperturbed, Mr. J filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision in Administrative Case No. 1234 and Criminal Case No. 4321. However, the CA dismissed the petition outright, holding that such petition constitutes an improper remedy to assail the administrative and criminal aspects of the aforementioned Ombudsman ruling. Was the CA’s dismissal of Mr. J’s petition correct? Explain.

You can write freely without an account. Sign in to reveal the suggested answer and track your progress.