Montoya v. Ombudsman

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246188. June 10, 2019.]

DENNIS M. MONTOYA, petitioner, vs.THE OMBUDSMAN, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 246188 (Dennis M. Montoya v. The Ombudsman, the Department of Justice, and the National Bureau of Investigation)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the August 7, 2018 2 and March 18, 2019 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 155492 for failure of petitioner Dennis M. Montoya (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing his appeal 4 for being filed out of time. HTcADC

As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner should have filed an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order 5 of respondent Office of the Ombudsman denying his motion for reconsideration. 6 He, however, opted to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA, 7 which filing did not effectively toll the running of the fifteen (15)-day period to appeal. As such, his subsequent filing of the appeal could no longer be given due course by the CA, thereby rendering its rulings final, executory, and unappealable. 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.

SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"

Very truly yours,

MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 4-32.

2.Id. at 39-42. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.

3.Id. at 44-45. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court), concurring.

4.Id. at 48-60.

5. Not attached to the rollo.

6. See rollo, p. 41. See also Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 17-03, entitled "AMENDMENT OF RULE III ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 07," approved on September 15, 2003. Section 7, Rule III thereof provides:

   Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. — Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the motion for reconsideration. (Emphasis supplied)

7. See rollo, p. 41.

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).