SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233179. November 29, 2017.]
EDGAR I. QUIÑONES, FRANCISCO C. FERNANDEZ, JR., ALFREDO M. ADAO, JOSE ELMER C. VELARDE, THOMAS PATRIC M. RELUCIO, AND JIM ERIC J. ACOSTA, ALL MEMBERS OF THE RUN AFTER THE SMUGGLERS [RATS] GROUP OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, petitioners,vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND SANYO SEIKI STAINLESS STEEL CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 November 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233179 (Edgar I. Quiñones, Francisco C. Fernandez, Jr., Alfredo M. Adao, Jose Elmer C. Velarde, Thomas Patric M. Relucio, and Jim Eric J. Acosta, all members of the Run After The Smugglers [RATS] Group of the Bureau of Customs v. Office of the President, represented by the Executive Secretary and Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, and Sanyo Seiki Stainless Steel Corporation)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the November 22, 2016 1 and July 28, 2017 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148256 for failure of petitioners Edgar I. Quiñones, Francisco C. Fernandez, Jr., Alfredo M. Adao, Jose Elmer C. Velarde, Thomas Patric M. Relucio, and Jim Eric J. Acosta (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying due course to their Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
As the CA correctly ruled, petitions under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (Rules) refer to judgments, final orders or resolutions in civil actions of the Regional Trial Courts, not quasi-judicial agencies such as the Office of the President (OP). The Rules provide for specific relief from unfavorable decisions of quasi-judicial agencies via Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules. Verily, a party's failure to avail of the proper remedy results in the loss of the right to assail the unfavorable decision, as in this case. It is settled that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law. 3 The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional, non-compliance with which renders the assailed decision final and executory. 4
Moreover, the records show that petitioners had already previously assailed the January 26, 2012 Decision and July 27, 2012 Resolution of the OP before the CA and this Court. These rulings had long become final and executory as per the April 24, 2013 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 126260, which the Court effectively upheld in the Resolutions dated January 15, 2014 and June 2, 2014 in G.R. No. 209547, and hence, irreversible. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the OP did not render a void judgment as it had jurisdiction over OP-DC Case No. 11-G-017, pursuant to Section 4 of Executive Order (EO) No. 12, Series of 2001, 5 as amended by EO No. 13, Series of 2010, 6i.e., petitioners, as members of the Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Group, were charged as having acted in conspiracy or may have been involved with then Bureau of Customs Deputy Commissioner for Assessment and Operations Coordinating Group and Executive Director of the RATS Group Gregorio B. Chavez, a presidential appointee over whom the OP exercises jurisdiction. 7 ISHCcT
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 102-103. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.Id. at 104-106.
3. See Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, 708 Phil. 443, 445 (2013); See also Dimaandal v. PO2 Ilagan, G.R. No. 202280, December 7, 2016; and Turks Shawarma v. Pajaron, G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017.
4.Id. at 456.
5. Entitled "CREATING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"; approved on April 16, 2001.
Section 4 pertinently reads:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions. —
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The Commission, acting as a collegial body, shall have the authority to investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints against all presidential appointees in the government and any of its agencies or instrumentalities (including members of the governing board of any instrumentality, regulatory agency, chartered institution and directors or officers appointed or nominated by the President to government-owned or controlled corporations or corporations where the government has a minority interest or who otherwise represent the interests of the government), occupying the position of assistant regional director, or an equivalent rank, and higher, otherwise classified as Salary Grade "26" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758). In the same manner, the Commission shall have jurisdiction to investigate a non-presidential appointee who may have acted in conspiracy or may have been involved with a presidential appointee or ranking officer mentioned in this subsection. The Commission shall have no jurisdiction over members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police.
6. Entitled "ABOLISHING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION AND TRANSFERRING ITS INVESTIGATIVE, ADJUDICATORY AND RECOMMENDATORY FUNCTIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT"; approved on November 15, 2010.
7. See rollo, p. 269.