Baviera v.
Zoleta o She still granted the permission verbally to Raman’s well-connected lawyer, and without a
Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court | October 12, 2006 | Callejo, SR., J.:
Nature of Case: Petition for review on certiorari
Digest maker: Buen
SUMMARY: Hold Departure Order was issued against several officers and directors of SCB,
including Indian national Raman, who left for Singapore after having been allowed by DOJ
Undersecretary and at the time Acting Secretary Gutierrez. Baviera filed a Complaint-
Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman charging Gutierrez for violation of RA 3019.
Complaint dismissed. He filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the CA, assailing the
resolutions of the Ombudsman, which he claimed acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. CA dismissed the petition because the proper
remedy was to file a petition for certiorari with the SC. SC affirmed.
DOCTRINE: The remedy to challenge the Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion
of a preliminary investigation is to file a petition for certiorari in the SC (not the CA) under
Rule 65 of the ROC.
FACTS:
● Antecedents: Baviera, a former employee and investor of the Standard Chartered Bank, claims that the
officers and directors of the bank conspired in defrauding him and the public by soliciting funds in
unregistered and unauthorized foreign stocks and securities.
o Sept. 18, 2003 - requested DOJ Sec. Datumanong for the issuance of a Hold Departure Order
(HDO) against some of the officers and directors of SCB, including Sridhar Raman, an Indian
national who was the Chief Finance Officer
o Sept. 26, 2003 - Sec. Datumanong granted his request. Bureau of Immigration implemented
the order. Meanwhile, Sec. Datumanong was in Vienna. Usec. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez
was designated Acting Sec of DOJ.
o Sept. 28, 2003 - Raman was apprehended by BI agents and NAIA officials based on the HDO.
o Sept. 29, 2003 - Raman was able to leave for Singapore after having been verbally given
permission by Acting Sec. Gutierrez, which the latter claims had been cleared with
Datumanong.
● Oct. 3, 2003 - Baviera filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman charging
Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez for violation of RA 3019.
o He averred the action made by Gutierrez to disregard the HDO, and to verbally grant
permission to Raman without any written application.
o He alleged that this special permission is illegal as there is no specific law or DOJ rule that
allows such or any exception to an HDO.
● Respondent Gutierrez requested the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint, and filed a
Counter-Affidavit denying such allegations on the basis that
o She merely upheld the Constitutional right of Raman to travel, having still been subject to
preliminary hearing.
o She did so in her capacity as Acting Sec and not as Usec, thereby having the power and
authority to perform all official acts of Dept. Sec.
● Baviera filed a Reply-Affidavit, alleging that
o The issue is not about Raman’s constitutional right, but about Gutierrez’ abuse of the DOJ’s
discretionary powers.
proper MR.
o Gutierrez disregarded proper procedures and betrayed her intentions of giving special
treatment to the Indian national.
o The attached request letter signed and stamped at 6:15 AM, the same day of Raman’s 8:15 AM
departure, is obviously a cover up as it would have been impossible to accomplish such a
request in so little time.
o She admitted in a press conference that she based her order on "strong representations" made
by Raman’s counsel, violating RA 3019.
● June 22, 2004 - Graft Investigation and Prosecutor Officer Rolando Zoleta signed a Resolution
recommending the dismissal of the criminal complaint against respondent Gutierrez for violation of
RA No. 3019 for insufficiency of evidence.
o No evidence to show that respondent Gutierrez has received material remuneration as a
consideration for her alleged use of influence on her decision to allow Raman to travel.
o No actual or real damage was suffered by any party, including the government as Mr. Raman
immediately returned to the Philippines.
o Raman still enjoys his constitutional right to travel.
● Baviera filed an MR. Zoleta issued a resolution recommending its denial for lack of merit.
● Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro again approved the recommendation.
● Baviera filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in the CA, assailing
the resolutions of the Ombudsman. He argued that the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
● CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition, citing that the proper remedy was to file a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. 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. — NO
a. Respondent Gutierrez contends that the proper remedy of petitioner to assail the Resolutions
of the Ombudsman finding no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(a), (e)
and (j) was to file a petition for certiorari with the SC not with the CA. (Fabian v. Aniano)
b. The jurisdiction of the CA extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases, not criminal cases.
c. The Court has previously ruled that the remedy to challenge the Resolution of the
Ombudsman at the conclusion of a preliminary investigation was to file a petition for
certiorari in this Court under Rule 65. (Perez v. Ombudsman)
d. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.
2. WON 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. — NO
a. 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.
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
NOTE:
RA 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized
by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to
be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules
and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.

xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to
officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions.

xxx

(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified
for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy
of one who is not so qualified or entitled.