Lazatin vs Desierto

FACTS:
-July 22, 1998 the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a
Complaint Affidavit charting petitioners with Illegal use of llegal Use of Public Funds as defined and
penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 3, paragraphs (a) and
(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as amended.
-The complaint alleged there were irregularities in the use of that then Congressman Carmelo F.
Lazatin of his Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) for 1996. With the help of his co- petitioners,
Lazatin was able to claim 18 checks amounting to P4,868,277.08 and convert them into cash.
-May 29, 2000 The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) issued a Resolution (and
eventually approved by the Ombudsman) recommending the filing of 14 counts each of malversation
against petitioners in the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan ordered re-evaluation of the case.
-September 18, 2000 The Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP)
-Resolution recommended the dismissal of the case for lack or insufficiency of evidence.
-October 24, 2000 The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) issued a memorandum after being ordered by
the Ombudsman to review the OSP resolution. The OLA memorandum recommended the OSP
resolution be disapproved the OSP be directed to proceed with the trial of the case.
-October 27, 2000 The Ombudsman adopted the OLA Memorandum, and the cases returned to the
Sandiganbayan.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion or
acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction.
2. Whether or not the Ombudsman correctly ruled that there was enough evidence to
support a finding of probable cause.
RULING:
1. NO. The OSP has been placed under the Office of the Ombudsman by virtue of R.A. No. 6770
(Ombudsman Act of 1989), and as such is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.

The Constitution does not proscribe the Legislature from granting the Ombudsman more powers,
nor from placing the OSP under the Office of the Ombudsman.

Petitioners assert that the Ombudsman has no authority to overturn the OSPs resolution
dismissing the cases against petitioners because the Constitution grants the Ombudsman only
with the power to watch, investigate and recommend the filing of proper cases against erring
officials, but it was not granted the power to prosecute.
In the case of Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court held that giving prosecutorial powers
to the Ombudsman is in accordance with the Constitution as paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI
provides that the Ombudsman shall exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided
by law.

2. Yes. The Ombudsman was acting in accordance with R.A. No. 6770 and properly exercised its
power of control and supervision over the OSP when it disapproved the Resolution dated
September 18, 2000.
Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of
1989), the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public
officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It
has been the consistent ruling of the Court not to interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his
investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as his rulings are supported by substantial evidence.
Envisioned as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of public service, he has wide
latitude in exercising his powers and is free from intervention from the three branches of government.
This is to ensure that his Office is insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence.

Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines VS Celebrity Travel and Tours, Inc.

Facts:
-Under Executive Order No. 122-A of the President of the Philippines, the Office of the Muslim
Affairs (OMA) is tasked to supervise the orderly conduct of pilgrimages to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
-The OMA and the BPE entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with respondent Celebrity
Travel and Tours, Inc., under which it was agreed that the latter would charter Philippine Airlines and
Saudia Airlines flights and secure accommodations for Filipino-Muslim participants in the 1998 Hajj
Pilgrimage to Mecca.
-The petitioner was designated to be the official depository of the pilgrims funds. The latter issued
Managers Check to the order of the respondent for the payment of the airfare, accommodations and
other fees but the OMA Director Mangoda requested the petitioner to stop the payment. The check
was dishonored by the petitioner bank.
-The respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with the Regional Trial Court of
Makati and it ruled in favor of the respondent with the amount of P211,459.52. Both parties filed an
appeal and CA ruled in favor of the respondent with the amount of P14,742,187.00.
-The respondent filed a motion for a writ of execution which the court granted. The petitioner then
filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and to Stop the Implementation of the Writ of Execution,
and a Supplemental Motion.
-On June 25, 2002, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition, on the ground that the copy of
the writ of execution appended to the petition was a mere photocopy, and not a certified true or
duplicate original copy
thereof as required under Section 3, Rule 46, in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition outright for the petitioners failure to
append thereto a certified true or duplicate original copy of the writ of execution issued by the trial
court.

Ruling: Yes. In a case of recent vintage, we held that while a petition for certiorari must be
accompanied by a duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling
subject thereof, there is no requirement that all other relevant documents attached to the petition
should be certified true copies as well. The CA nevertheless outrightly dismissed the petition on
account of the petitioners failure to append certified true copies of certain relevant documents referred
to therein.

In any event, we agree with the petitioners that even assuming that the Rules require all attachments to
a petition for certiorari to be certified true copies, the CA should have nevertheless taken cognizance
of the petition. It has been the consistent holding of this Court that cases should be determined on the
merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defense, rather than on
technicality or some procedural imperfections. In so doing, the ends of justice would be better served.
Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other
matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.