SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244285. March 11, 2019.]
COLEEN CARYL C. CATAMA, petitioner,vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL SIXTEENTH DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, AND JOVENEE SAGUN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 March 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244285 (Coleen Caryl C. Catama v. The Court of Appeals Special Sixteenth Division, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, and Jovenee Sagun)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules) for being the wrong mode of appeal to assail the April 17, 2018 2 and September 4, 2018 3 Resolutions (Assailed Resolutions) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 155198, the proper remedy being a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (Rule 45 Petition) of the same Rules.
In any event, even if the Court were to treat the instant petition as a Rule 45 Petition, the Court nonetheless finds no reversible error on the part of the CA in rendering the assailed Resolutions. The CA correctly ruled that the proper remedy to assail the Ombudsman's (OMB) Joint Resolution 4 in this case is a Rule 65 Petition, and not a petition for review under Rule 43. 5 Jurisprudence has squarely settled that the OMB's decision absolving a respondent of an administrative charge is final and unappealable. 6 Thus, it may be subjected to judicial review only on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, brought under Rule 65 of the above-mentioned Rule, 7 which petitioner failed to do.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo. pp. 13-35.
2.Id. at 113-117. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
3.Id. at 41-42.
4. Dated March 31, 2017, approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales; id. at 156-162.
5. See id. at 116.
6. See Barata v. Abalos, Jr., 411 Phil. 204, 212 (2001); See also Mandagan v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 228267, October 8, 2018.
7.Dagan v. OMB, 721 Phil. 400, 412 (2013).