DUYON v. FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
A criminal aspect: Violation of RA 3019 and Falsification of
(Napa) November 26, 2014 | G.R. No. 172218 | Leonardo-De Castro, J.
PETITIONERS: Feliciano B. Duyon substituted by his children: Maxima R.
Duyon-Orsame, Efren R. Duyon, Novilyn R. Duyon, Elizabeth R. Duyon-
Sibuma, Modestor R. Duyon, Errol R. Duyon and Divina R. Duyon-Vinluan
RESPONDENTS: The Former Special Fourth Division of the Court of
Appeals and Eleonor P. Bunag-Cabacungan
SUMMARY/RECIT-READY: Duyon was issued a CLT for the land he was
tilling since 1957 however it was also registered under the name of Eleonor
P. Bunag-Cabacungan and her husband. Eleonor worked in DAR also her
husband. Duyon then filed a complaint-affidavit to the Deputy OMB of
Luzon with 2 aspects: (1) administrative aspect and (2) criminal aspect that
involves violation of Sec 171 of the RPC and Sec 3(e) of the RPC. At first in
the OMB of Luzon, in its Decision and Resolution, recommended suspension
of the spouses for 6 months (admin aspect) and recommended filing of
Information against the spouses (criminal aspect), however OMB of Luzon
subsequently issued a Joint-Order lessening the suspension to 3 months and
exonerating the husband. They both file certiorari in the CA. CA held that
certiorari is an improper remedy. The more relevant issue is that whether the
CA can review the criminal aspect decision of the OMB No. The SC upheld
the case of Fabian that the CAs jurisdiction is limited to the administrative
disciplinary decisions directives or orders of the OMB.
DOCTRINE: Review of Decisions of the Ombudsman Decisions of the
Ombudsman in criminal cases are unappealable. However, where the
findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause (in criminal
cases) are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders,
directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases only.
FACTS
1. [In 1979] Feliciano B. Duyon was issued Certificate of Land Transder
(CLT) over the land he had been tilling since 1957. Apparently the
same land was also covered by TCT inder Emancipation patent
which had been issued to Eleonor P. Bunag-Cabacungan
2. Duyon discovered the double registration, he filed a complaint-
affidavit
a. An administrative aspect: for misconduct and abuse of
authority; and
b.
Public Documents (under the RPC)
3. Bunag-Cabacungan was an employee of Municipal Agriculture
Office of Nueva Ecija under the Department of Agriculture
4. In defense, Joint Counter-Affidavit denied accusations and alleged
that he was never deprived of possession and he actually applied for
a bigger area 18,257 sqm than the subject land of Duyon which is
only 6,358 sqm.
5. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon issued:
a. [Decision] Administrative aspect: OMB recommends 6
months suspension without pay for simple misconduct
b. [Resolution] Criminal Aspect: recommended the filing of
Information for Violation of RA 3019, Sec. 3(e)
6. Subsequently, Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the
Cabacungan spouses and Partial Motion for Reconsideration by
Duyon - OMB for Luzon in a Joint Order modified the Decision and
Resolution, dismissed the charges against the husband, Eutiquio
Cabacungan and reduced the suspension to 3 months for Eleonor
Bunag-Cabacungan. And it maintained the order to the Prosecutor to
file an Information against Eleonor.
Petition in the Court of Appeals
7. Eleonor Bunag-Cabacungan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
before the CA; however the CA dismissed [in a Resolution] for the
defect in using the petition for certiorari against the assailed Decision
and Joint-Order [of the OMB of Luzon]
8. Also, Duyon filed his own Petition for Certiorari in the CA (and
motion to consolidate his case and Bunag-Cabacungans).
a. They denied and dismissed Duyons Petition and Motion for
Reconsideration that was subsequent to the dismissal of the
said own Petition for Certiorari
b. CA held: Under the current case law, all appeal from
decisions shall be taken to the CA under Rule 43 of Rules of
Court (Appeal from CTA and Quasi-Judicial agencies to CA)
and the decisions of the OMB in criminal cases are
unappealable; probable cause can be reviewed if tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.
9. Bunag-Cabacungans petition:
a. Administrative Aspect: CA reversed and set aside the
assailed Decision and Joint Order and dismissed the
complaint filed by Duyon against Bunag-Cabacungan.
b. Criminal Aspect: It held that there is no probable cause; the
elements were not present (of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019). CA said
that there is no conspiracy between her and the DAR
 10. Duyon is insisting the Fabian case that ruled that CA can only
review administrative disciplinary cases in the OMB while Bunag-
Cabacungan insist that there is an Rule III Administrative Order No.
07 of the OMB amendment in 2003 the phrase in all other
casesremoves the distinction between admin case and criminal case.

RELEVANT ISSUES:
WoN the CA has jurisdiction over the decisions made by the OMB
with respect to criminal cases NONE

HELD/RATIO:

On the jurisdiction of CA to the decision of the OMB- criminal aspect

1. Duyon was correct in his insistence that the Court of Appeals has no
jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman case. "The
Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders,
directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or
non-administrative cases
2. Bunag-Cabacungans contention is ludicrous. It must be stressed that
Rule III is for administrative cases and there is Rule II that governs
criminal cases in Administrative Order No. 07.
3. As such the ruling of the CA on the criminal aspect of the case is
void.

On the administrative aspect

1. The Court, shall, resolve the issue raised by the petition in this case,
specially Duyon's prayer for this Court to order the denial of the
petition for review filed by Bunag-Cabacungan before the Court of
Appeals, relying upon the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals,
which are pertinent to the resolution of the administrative charge
against respondent Bunag Cabacungan.
2. As the Court of Appeals has determined, there were no specific
allegations regarding Bunag-Cabacungan's actual or direct
participation in the erroneous issuance of the emancipation patent,
nor was it specifically shown that she committed prohibited acts in
the performance of her official duties or public functions. The Court
of Appeals also found no evidence to establish that she acted in
conspiracy with the officials of the DAR, which was the government
office responsible for the issuance of the emancipation patent. Thus,
the charge for misconduct in office against respondent
BunagCabacungan has no merit.