Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

BAVIERA vs.

ZOLETA
Facts:
Manuel V. Baviera who was a former employee and investor of Standard Chartered
Bank (SCB) filed several complaints against officers of SCB Philippine Branch,
including Sridhar Raman, who was an Indian national who was the Chief Finance
Officer of the bank
Baviera claimed that he was victimized by the officers or directors of SCB, who
conspired with one another in defrauding him as well as the investing public by
soliciting funds in unregistered and unauthorized foreign stocks and securities
Baviera requested the Secretary of Justice to issue a Hold Departure Order (HDO)
against some of the officers and directors of SCB, including Raman which was
granted
Meanwhile, Secretary Datumanong went to Vienna, Austria to attend a conference
and Undersecretary Merceditas Navarro Gutierrez was designated as Acting
Secretary of the DOJ
When Raman needed to leave for a trip to Singapore on September 28, 2003, he
was apprehended by BI agents and NAIA officials because of the HDO but was
able to leave the next day on September 29, 2003 to attend a conference and was
scheduled to return on October 2, 2003
It turned out that Acting Secretary of Justice Merceditas N. Gutierrez verbally
allowed the departure of Raman. On the same day, Raman, through counsel, wrote
Secretary Datumanong for the lifting of the HDO insofar as his client was
concerned
Based on these actions, Baviera filed a Complaint Affidavit with the Office of the
Ombudsman charging Gutierred for violation of Section 3(a), (e), and (j) of RA No.
3019
Bavieras main arguments in his complaint was that the actuations of respondent
Gutierrez were illegal, highly irregular and questionable Gutierrez admitted
having interceded on behalf of the Indian national, thus allowing him to leave the
country for Singapore, the appeal of Raman to be allowed to leave the country was
made verbally, it is unsure on whether or not Gutierrez cleared the matter with
Sec. Datumanong, and thet the verbal special permission granted to Raman by
respondent Gutierrez was illegal as there is no specific law of DOJ rule allowing
the grant of special permission or exception to an HDO
Gutierrez averred that she merely upheld Ramans constitutional right to travel
and that the DOJ may allow persons by HDOs to travel abroad, for a specific
purpose and for a specific period of time, as well as taking into consideration the
fact that Secretary Datumanong eventually lifted the HDO, therefore, ratifying her
act.
Gutierrez requested the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint against
her because she was never persuaded, induced, or influenced to violate the rules
and regulations promulgated by competent authority
June 22, 2004 Graft Investigation and Prosecutor officer Rolando Zoleta signed a
Resolution recommending that the criminal complaint against respondent be
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence
because there was no evidence,
documentary, or testimonial, 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 abroad

Baviera filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
in the CA, assailing the resolution of the Ombudsman
CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that the proper
remedy was to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court conforming with the ruling of Enemecio vs. Office of the
Ombudsman
Petitioner filed an MR insisting that his petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule
65 was in accordance with the ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto and that the Office of
the Ombudsman is a quasi judicial agency of the government which means that
the CA has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC over a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the ROC
CA issued a Resolution stating that Fabian vs. Desierto is not applicable because it
would only apply to appeals from resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases. The remedy of the aggrieved party from resolutions of the
Ombudsman in criminal cases is to file a petition for certiorari with the SC
Issue: 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.
Gutierrez is correct in her contention that the proper remedy of petitioner was to
file a petition for certiorati with the SC, not with the CA
Tirol, Jr. vs. Del Rosario remedy of the aggrieved party from a resolution of the
Office of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probably cause in
criminal cases was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the SC the
remedy to challenge the Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a
preliminary investigation was to file a petition for certiorari in the SC under Rule
65
Fabian vs. Desierto CA ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases
Issue: WON respondent officials committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal complaint
of petitioner against respondent for lack of probable cause? NO
Court ruled that petitioner failed to establish that the respondent officials
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of lack of jurisdiction
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction
The Ombudsmans exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or
despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law
The petitioner failed to establish probably cause for the violations of Sections 3(a),
(e), and (j) of RA No. 3019 the Court will not interfere with the exercise of the
Ombudsmans discretion
HELD: PETITION DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT