William C. Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman

Summary

A racehorse owner challenged the Ombudsman's decision exonerating former Philracom officials from administrative charges including overpayment, malversation, and conflict of interest. The Court of Appeals dismissed his certiorari petition citing wrong procedural remedy. The Supreme Court corrected the procedural rule, establishing that while Ombudsman decisions exonerating respondents are final and unappealable, they remain subject to certiorari for grave abuse of discretion, which should be filed with the Court of Appeals first under the hierarchy of courts doctrine. The Court abandoned the Brito precedent requiring direct filing with the Supreme Court. However, the petition was ultimately denied for failure to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman's findings were supported by substantial evidence. This case clarifies important procedural rules for challenging Ombudsman exoneration decisions.