Before us is a special civil action for certiorari, seeking the reversal of the Orders dated August 21, 1998 and October 28, 1998 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, which denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, respectively.

The facts are:

During a spot audit conducted on March 21, 1977 by a team of auditors from the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) headquarters, a cash shortage of P154,350.13 was discovered in the funds of its Bohol chapter. The chapter administrator, petitioner Francisca S. Baluyot, was held accountable for the shortage. Thereafter, on January 8, 1998, private respondent Paul E. Holganza, in his capacity as a member of the board of directors of the Bohol chapter, filed an affidavit-complaint1 [Annexes "A" and "B" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 15-34.] before the Office of the Ombudsman charging petitioner of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint was docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-98-0022. However, upon recommendation by respondent Anna Marie P. Militante, Graft Investigation Officer I, an administrative docket for dishonesty was also opened against petitioner; hence, OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0063.2 [Annex "B-2" of the Petition, Id., p. 39.]

On February 6, 1998, public respondent issued an Order3 [Annex "C" of the Petition, Id., p. 40.] requiring petitioner to file her counter-affidavit to the charges of malversation and dishonesty within ten days from notice, with a warning that her failure to comply would be construed as a waiver on her part to refute the charges, and that the case would be resolved based on the evidence on record. On March 14, 1998, petitioner filed her counter-affidavit,4 [Annex "D" of the Petition, Id., pp. 41-50.] raising principally the defense that public respondent had no jurisdiction over the controversy. She argued that the Ombudsman had authority only over government-owned or controlled corporations, which the PNRC was not, or so she claimed. Sc-slx

On August 21, 1998, public respondent issued the first assailed Order5 [Annex "F" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 156-157.] denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss. It further scheduled a clarificatory hearing on the criminal aspect of the complaint and a preliminary conference on its administrative aspect on September 2, 1998. Petitioner received the order on August 26, 1998 and she filed a motion for reconsideration6 [Annex "I" of the Petition, Id., pp. 160-162.] the next day.

On October 28, 1998, public respondent issued the second assailed Order7 [Annex "K" of the Petition, Id., pp. 168-170.] denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this recourse.

We dismiss the petition.

Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy since the PNRC is allegedly a private voluntary organization. The following circumstances, she insists, are indicative of the private character of the organization: (1) the PNRC does not receive any budgetary support from the government, and that all money given to it by the latter and its instrumentalities become private funds of the organization; (2) funds for the payment of personnel’s salaries and other emoluments come from yearly fund campaigns, private contributions and rentals from its properties; and (3) it is not audited by the Commission on Audit. Petitioner states that the PNRC falls under the International Federation of Red Cross, a Switzerland-based organization, and that the power to discipline employees accused of misconduct, malfeasance, or immorality belongs to the PNRC Secretary General by virtue of Section "G", Article IX of its by-laws.8 [A copy of the by-laws is not included in the petition.] She threatens that "to classify the PNRC as a government-owned or controlled corporation would create a dangerous precedent as it would lose its neutrality, independence and impartiality xxx."9 [Par. 15 of the Petition, Rollo, p. 8.]Sl-xsc

Practically the same issue was addressed in Camporedondo v. National Labor Relations Commission, et. al.,10 [G.R. No. 129049, August 6, 1999.] where an almost identical set of facts obtained. Petitioner therein was the administrator of the Surigao del Norte chapter of the PNRC. An audit conducted by a field auditor revealed a shortage in the chapter funds in the sum of P109,000.00. When required to restitute the amount of P135,927.78, petitioner therein instead applied for early retirement, which was denied by the Secretary General of the PNRC. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against PNRC before the National Labor Relations Commission. In turn, PNRC moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, averring that PNRC was a government corporation whose employees are embraced by civil service regulation. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint, and the Commission sustained his order. The petitioner assailed the dismissal of his complaint via a petition for certiorari, contending that the PNRC is a private organization and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. In dismissing the petition, we ruled thus: Sl-xm-is

Clearly then, public respondent has jurisdiction over the matter, pursuant to Section 13, of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989", to wit:

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.

Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), and Mendoza , JJ., no part.