04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. [5] Section 44 (m) of Republic Act No. 8371. [6] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 167335 & 167337), pp. 28-29. [7] Id. at 56. [8] Id. at 29. [9] Id. at 30. [10] Id. at 115-120. [11] Id. at 35. [12] Id. at 25. [13] In Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 156160, 9 December 2004 (445 SCRA 655, 665), it was held that "the remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or non-administrative cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals. In cases when the aggrieved party is questioning the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause, x x x, there is likewise the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals. [14] In Fabian v. Desierto (356 Phil. 787, 799), it was ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [15] Rollo (G.R. No. 173152), p. 172. [16] Supra note 14. [17] 390 Phil. 236, 248 (2000). [18] G.R. No. 163089, 6 December 2006. [19] Id. [20] Rollo (G.R. No. 167335 & 167337), pp. 24-25. [21] Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 158613-14, 22 February 2006, 483 SCRA 83, 92-93. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44053 10/11