THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 175017. October 2, 2013.]
ERLINDA S. DAYOS, petitioner, vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND CORAZON SANTIAGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 2, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 175017 (Erlinda S. Dayos v. Office of the Ombudsman and Corazon Santiago).— Before the Court is the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Order 1 of the Office of the Ombudsman dated April 21, 2004, dismissing petitioner's complaint against private respondent, and its Order 2 dated August 27, 2004, denying herein petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, be reversed and set aside.
The antecedent facts are as follows.
Petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent, Corazon Santiago, Director IV of the Department of Education, for alleged violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, before the Office of the Ombudsman. Private respondent allegedly made false statements in her counter-affidavit submitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City during the preliminary investigation of another separate case. On April 21, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order dismissing petitioner's complaint for lack of merit. The Ombudsman ruled that the statements made by private respondent in said affidavit cannot be made the basis for the institution of a criminal or administrative charge, as the same are considered absolutely privileged communication. cSCTEH
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was denied, per Order dated August 27, 2004. The order of the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration was received by petitioner on October 14, 2004. Petitioner then filed a "petition for review and certiorari" with the Court of Appeals (CA) to question said Orders of public respondent. In a Decision dated September 27, 2006, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction with regard to the criminal aspect of the case, and for lack of merit with regard to the administrative aspect thereof. The CA correctly ruled that it is this Court which has jurisdiction over cases assailing the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.
It was only on October 30, 2006, that petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari to question the orders of public respondent Office of the Ombudsman insofar as the criminal aspect is concerned. 3 In its Comment to the petition (adopted by private respondent), public respondent pointed out that since the petition questions the Orders of public respondent, then the same was filed out of time.
Petitioner countered that she is questioning the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2006.
The petition is doomed to fail.
Contrary to what petitioner stated in her Reply, the petition itself clearly states that what it seeks to nullify are the Orders of public respondent Office of the Ombudsman and not the Decision of the CA. The petition does not contain any allegation assailing the judgment of the CA. All arguments revolved around the alleged errors of herein public respondent. Finally, the relief prayed for by petitioner was for public respondent's Orders dated April 21, 2004 and August 27, 2004 to be nullified and set aside, and for public respondent to be directed to proceed with the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint against private respondent.
Nothing in the petition points to any error regarding the ruling of the CA. In fact, the filing of the present petition is a clear showing that petitioner is in full accord with the CA's ruling that it is this Court which has jurisdiction over the action to question the public respondent's Orders in this case. Obviously, petitioner is assailing the Orders of public respondent and not the Decision of the CA.
However, note that Section 4, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "[t]he petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60)-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion." 4 Since the order being assailed is the Order of public respondent, the petition for certiorari should have been filed within sixty days from October 14, 2004, the date of petitioner's receipt of the order denying her motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The present petition was filed only on October 30, 2006. Clearly, therefore, it was filed well beyond the prescribed period of sixty days from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Moreover, even if the petition had been filed on time, it would nevertheless be denied for tack of merit. It must be emphasized that the remedy of certiorari is available only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. 5 The Court does not re-examine evidence nor delve into the correctness of the evaluation thereof. 6 The manner in which public respondent ascribed weight or credibility on the pieces of evidence and the correctness of its analysis and interpretation is not for this Court to interfere with in an action for certiorari, unless it is shown that respondents did so in a way that is absolutely lacking in rhyme or reason. A perusal of the Orders dated April 21, 2004 and August 27, 2004, respectively, would show that that is not the case here. TEHDIA
Petitioner mainly assails the Ombudsman's ruling that the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner are insufficient to further warrant the conduct of preliminary investigation for the charge of perjury against private respondent. The discussion of the issues in the instant petition does not constitute errors of jurisdiction, only alleged errors of judgment. Public respondent's judgment may or may not have been correct, but it has not been shown to be tainted with arbitrariness, despotism or capriciousness amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The records show that public respondent based its ruling on the evidence presented by the parties, and on a judicious analysis of law and jurisprudence. Hence, the Court does not find any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (J. Mendoza, on official leave; J. Reyes, designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 1557 dated September 19, 2013).
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Moreno F. Generoso and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, Orlando C. Casimiro; rollo, pp. 36-41.
2.Id. at 42-49.
3.Id. at 15.
4.Emphasis supplied.
5.Soriano v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 160772, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 394, 400.
6.First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171989, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 564, 578.