FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240149. August 13, 2018.]
FLOCERFIDA MAGBUHOS BABIDA, petitioner, vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 13, 2018which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 240149 (Flocerfida Magbuhos Babida v. Office of the Ombudsman). — The Court resolves to DENY the petition for utter lack of merit. Petitioner admits that the petition was filed out of time. We cannot overemphasize that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. One who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirement of the rules, lest he loses his right to appeal. 1 Besides, the remedy to question the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases is to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 By filing the present petition, petitioner availed of the wrong mode of appeal.
Significantly, this case does not present an exceptional circumstance for which the Court may decide to set aside the stringent application of the rules to prevent manifest injustice. Even on the merits, the petition should fail as copies of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) allegedly osbtained from the human resources department of the City of Parañaque may not be considered newly-discovered evidence that may turn the tide in favor of petitioner. These SALNs are not substantially different from the SALNs that have been considered by the Office of the Ombudsman in arriving at its decision. The fact thus remains that these SALNs do not reflect true and accurate records of petitioner's assets and exhibited a failure on her part to observe the requirements of Section 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 3 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, 4 reason why she was found guilty of simple neglect of duty.
Finally, we cannot ignore the consequence of the filing of the appeal beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner alleged that her counsel received a copy of the assailed Decision "way back 2017." She did not allege having filed a motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, it was only in the third quarter of 2018 that she filed the present appeal. By operation of law, the assailed Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman has already attained finality. Consequently, appellate courts have lost jurisdiction to review the case. 5
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for having been filed out of time, being the wrong mode of appeal, and for lack of jurisdiction in view of the finality of the assailed August 2, 2017 Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in Case No. OMB-C-A-16-0135.
The petitioner is hereby required to SUBMIT within five (5) days from notice hereof, an explanation why service of the petition for certiorari to the Office of the Ombudsman was not done personally as required by Sec. 11, Rule 13 in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 45 and Sec. 5 (d), Rule 56, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. DETACa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Mapagu, G.R. No. 196084, February 15, 2017, 817 SCRA 590.
2.Duyon v. Former Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172218, November 26, 2014, 742 SCRA 416.
3. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
4. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
5.Nueva Ecija II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Mapagu, supra note 1.