SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242589. December 5, 2018.]
JULIAN M. CAWALING, JR., 1petitioner, vs.LORNA TANDOG VILLASEÑOR 2 AND NEPHTALIE T. TINAO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 December 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242589 (Julian M. Cawaling, Jr. v. Lorna Tandog Villaseñor and Nephtalie T. Tinao)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 3 and AFFIRM the February 23, 2018 4 and August 29, 2018 5 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154531 for failure of petitioner Julian M. Cawaling, Jr. to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying his motion for extension of time within which to file his petition for review before it.
As correctly ruled by the CA, it cannot grant a thirty (30)-day extension outright, considering that Section 4, 6 Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Rules) only allows a fifteen (15)-day extension, and a further extension which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days if founded on the most persuasive of reasons. 7 It is settled that "[t]he right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost," 8 as in this case.
Moreover, petitioner's appeal to the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules is nevertheless dismissible for being the wrong remedy. It is settled that resolutions or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in criminal cases may only be elevated to the Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. 9 On the other hand, resolutions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are elevated to the CA through a: (a) Rule 65 petition for certiorari on the ground or grave abuse of discretion in cases where the respondent is absolved of the charge, or where the respondent is found administratively liable but the penalty meted is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month, or a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary; and (b) Rule 43 petition for review in other cases. 10 Here, since respondents Lorna T. Villaseñor and Nephtalie T. Tinao were absolved in both the criminal and administrative aspects, petitioner should have availed of the proper remedies as afore-discussed. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "Julian M. Cawaling" in the CA Resolutions. See rollo, pp. 199 and 218.
2. "Lorna Tandog Villasenor" in some parts of the rollo.
3.Rollo, pp. 9-25.
4.Id. at 199-201. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring.
5.Id. at 218-219.
6. Section 4. Period of Appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
7. See rollo, p. 200.
8.NSC Holdings (Philippines), Inc. v. Trust International Paper Corporation, G.R. No. 193069, March 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 424, 432, citing Pascual v. Robles, 622 Phil. 804, 811-812 (2009).
9. See Gatchalian v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018, citing Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 159139 and 174777, June 6, 2017, 826 SCRA 112, 132.
10. See Mandagan v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 228267, October 10, 2018.