FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247801. December 2, 2021.]
EDGARDO S. GONZALES, petitioner,vs. EDGARDO A. TALLADO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247801 — Edgardo S. Gonzales v. Edgardo A. Tallado
The petition utterly lacks merit.
In administrative cases, the right to appeal is extended only to the party adversely affected by the ruling. The phrase "party adversely affected" refers to the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action, or the disciplining authority whose decision is in question. This definition does not include the private complainant in the administrative case. For it is settled that in an administrative case, the private complainant is a mere witness. No private interest is involved in an administrative case as the offense committed is against the government. 1
The principle finds support in Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, viz.:
Section 4. Definition of Terms. — The terms hereunder shall be construed as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
j. PARTY ADVERSELY AFFECTED refers to the respondent against whom a decision in an administrative case has been rendered or to the disciplining authority in an appeal from a decision reversing or modifying the original decision. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, petitioner Edgardo S. Gonzales, as private complainant, is not the party adversely affected by the dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154640. As mere witness to the case, he does not possess the legal personality to file the present petition before this Court.
In National Appellate Board v. P/Insp. Mamauag, 2 therein private complainant Judge Angeles filed an administrative complaint against respondents P/Insp. Mamauag, et al. which got dismissed by the Central Police District Command Director. She, thus, filed an appeal before the Chief of Police of the Philippine National Police. But the Court held that such recourse was impermissible since Judge Angeles, as mere witness, had no legal personality to appeal the dismissal of her own complaint. 3
Similarly, in Ochoa v. Dy Buco, 4 Sanyo Seiki Steel Corporation filed a complaint before the Office of the President against Dy Buco and the other members of the Run-After-The-Smugglers Group of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) for grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This was in relation to the alleged improper implementation by Dy Buco, et al. of the Letters of Authority and Mission Orders issued by the BOC against Sanyo Seiki. The Office of the President initially found Dy Buco, et al. guilty, albeit, the Court of Appeals absolved Dy Buco on appeal. Sanyo Seiki appealed the exoneration of Dy Buco before this Court which ruled that Sanyo Seiki, as private complainant, was not the party adversely affected by the decision of the Court of Appeals, hence, had no legal personality to interpose the appeal before this Court.
At any rate, the failure of either the Ombudsman or respondent Edgardo A. Tallado to move for reconsideration of, and later appeal, the Decision dated September 26, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154640, rendered the same final and immutable. As a rule, a final judgment may no longer be disturbed or modified by any court even if the purpose of the alteration is to rectify perceived errors of fact or law. This doctrine is meant to prevent delays in the administration of justice and put an end to judicial controversies which cannot drag perpetually. Though the doctrine admits exceptions, none of which are present here. 5 Thus, the Court is constrained to uphold the dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154640.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 26, 2018 and Resolution dated May 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154640 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Ochoa v. Dy Buco, G.R. No. 216634; Sanyo Seiki Stainless Steel Corporation v. Dy Buco, G.R. No. 216636, October 14, 2020.
2. See 504 Phil. 186-203 (2005).
3.Id. at 199-200.
4.Supra note 1.
5. See HH & Co. Agricultural Corp. v. Perlas, G.R. No. 217095, February 12, 2020.