FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239959. August 8, 2018.]
PO3 EXEQUIEL M. AREVALO, PO2 ALIPIO A. VILLAREAL, PO1 JEREMY OLIVER L. FELIX, AND PO1 PHILLIP CHRISTIAN C. RAMOS [THE LATTER REPRESENTED BY HIS WIDOW, MARIA SHEENA CELEIN M. RAMOS], petitioners,vs. THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES AND PCINSP. MAPHA T. MACAPAAR [RET.], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 239959 (PO3 Exequiel M. Arevalo, PO2 Alipio A. Villareal, PO1 Jeremy Oliver L. Felix, and PO1 Phillip Christian C. Ramos [the latter represented by his widow, Maria Sheena Celein M. Ramos] v. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices and PCInsp. Mapha T. Macapaar [Ret.]). — After review, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for being filed out of time. The Consolidated Resolution was promulgated on April 21, 2017. Petitioners received a copy of the said Resolution on June 18, 2017 and therefore had only 60 days or until August 17, 2017 within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. They only filed the present petition on June 29, 2018 or almost 11 months after the Resolution became final and executory.
In any case, the petition must still fail as petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the Office of the Ombudsman committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause against petitioners for committing the crime of robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
In so far as the administrative charge of grave misconduct, the petition must likewise fail as petitioners failed to file the appropriate appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Indeed, a petition for certiorari is and cannot be made a substitute for a lost appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. In this case, petitioners attribute the failure to file an appeal before the CA to the negligence and mistake of their counsel. The general rule, however, is that the negligence of counsel binds the client in the absence of proof that the negligence was so gross as to deprive his clients of due process. 1 Petitioners, though, failed to prove such negligence. Indeed, the Court has often reminded members of the bench and bar that this extraordinary action lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. 2
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Consolidated Resolution promulgated on April 21, 2017 in OMB-P-C-14-0102, OMB-P-A-14-0118, OMB-P-C-14-0103, OMB-P-A-14-0119, OMB-P-C-15-0148, and OMB-P-A-15-0159 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Ong Lay Hin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015, 748 SCRA 198, 207-208.
2.Dycoco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 566, 578. Citations omitted.