04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly subject disbursements were not referred to the Commission on Audit (COA) for appropriate examination and action. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that [the] present criminal and administrative cases lodged against respondents SANDY PADILLA and MONICO DINGAL, JR. be DISMISSED for being premature. The dismissal of the present cases, however, is without prejudice to whatever results of any audit investigation that might later on be conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) on the matter.[11] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. He insisted that as the one in-charge of the NCIP Region IV, he can, independent of the COA, institute the said charges. The criminal and the civil charges against respondents were malum prohibitum, thus these charges should not be made to depend on the findings of the COA, which will have to separately decide on filing a case against private respondents should the latter be found to have violated COA rules and regulations. In a Joint Order dated 7 December 2004, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon modified his earlier resolution. With respect to the administrative charge, the Deputy Ombudsman found private respondents liable under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 6713, but not of Gross Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Public Interest and imposed upon them the penalty of reprimand. However, with respect to the criminal indictments, the Deputy Ombudsman again dismissed the same, finding that the acts complained of were not criminal in nature. The joint order decreed: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully recommended that the Joint Motion for Reconsideration dated 17 August 2004 be PARTIALLY GRANTED. Respondents Sandy P. Padilla and Monico A. Dingal, Jr. are hereby meted a penalty of REPRIMAND with a Stern Warning that a repetition of the same act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. On the other hand, the dismissal of the criminal cases are hereby affirmed.[12] On 11 March 2005, petitioner filed directly before this Court a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court questioning the criminal aspect of the Joint Order dated 7 December 2004 of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon which dismissed the criminal cases filed against private respondents.[13] The petition was docketed as G.R. Nos. 167335 and 167337. Believing that the Court of Appeals is vested with the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman pertaining to administrative disciplinary cases,[14] petitioner elevated the administrative aspect of the Joint Order dated 7 December 2004 to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated 18 October 2005, dismissed said petition on the ground that petitioner availed himself of the wrong remedy by pursuing the administrative case before the Court of Appeals through Rule 65. The appellate court opined that appeals in administrative cases decided by the Office of the Ombudsman should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 and not under Rule 65. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44053 4/11