SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242654. January 7, 2019.]
SANTIAGO R. MARAVILLAS, petitioner,vs. BIERNE M. ESMERO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 January 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242654 (Santiago R. Maravillas v. Bierne M. Esmero)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 29, 2018 2 and September 4, 2018 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 11366 for failure of petitioner Santiago R. Maravillas (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing outright petitioner's belated notice of appeal for being a wrong remedy.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Ombudsman's judgment or final order. 4 Case law states that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, which are not considered as final and unappealable, 5 should be taken to the CA under the provisions of Rule 43, 6 as in this case. It is well-settled that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional as well, and that failure to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders the judgment appealed from final and executory. 7 There being no apparent cogent reason to relax such technicality, the Court upholds the dismissal of petitioner's appeal before the CA.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-48.
2.Id. at 62-64. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
3.Id. at 11-14.
4. See id. at 62-63.
5. See Almario-Templonuevo v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 198583, June 28, 2017, 828 SCRA 283, 294-295. See also Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, dated April 10, 1990.
6. See Gatchalian v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018.
7. See Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs, 760 Phil. 954, 964 (2015).