SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230459. October 6, 2021.]
LORETO C. SANCHEZ, MANUEL "TATA" J. BROCE, JR., EDGAR ALLAN RIGOR, MELCOHN TAN, and ROGELIO DELA TORRE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 18TH DIVISION, and FORTUNATO R. CAÑAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 October 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230459 (Loreto C. Sanchez, Manuel "Tata" J. Broce, Jr., Edgar Allan Rigor, Melcohn Tan, and Rogelio dela Torre v. Court of Appeals, 18th Division, and Fortunato R. Cañas). — The present petition, 1 captioned as one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court but is hereby treated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the same Rules, seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolutions 2 dated June 15, 2016 and December 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 10108 UDK which denied the Petition for Review 3 under Rule 43 for having been filed out of time.
The Facts
The instant case stemmed from the proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) wherein Loreto C. Sanchez, Manuel "Tata" J. Broce, Jr., Edgar Allan Rigor, Melcohn Tan and Rogelio dela Torre (collectively, petitioners); 4 all of whom are government employees of the City of San Carlos, Negros Occidental, were found guilty of Oppression and meted the penalty of suspension without pay. 5 The Ombudsman likewise found probable cause to indict petitioners for the crime of Theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. 6
Petitioners moved for reconsideration the administrative and criminal aspects of the case. They likewise filed a supplemental to the motions for reconsideration on October 19, 2015. 7 However, the Ombudsman denied the supplemental to the motions for reconsideration for lack of merit in a Joint Order 8 dated January 13, 2016. 9
The Joint Order denying the supplemental to the motions for reconsideration was received by counsel for petitioners on May 13, 2016. 10 Thus, they had until May 28, 2016 to file their Petition for Review under Rule 43. However, May 28, 2016 fell on a Saturday. Therefore, the last day to file their petition was the following Monday, May 30, 2016. 11
On May 30, 2016, petitioners filed their Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review (Motion for Extension) 12via LBC 13 which the CA received on May 31, 2016. 14 Consequently, the CA dismissed 15 the petition outright because the Motion for Extension was filed out of time. The CA also denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration 16 in a Resolution 17 dated December 5, 2016. 18
Hence, the instant petition. 19
Issue
The issue before the Court is whether the CA erred in dismissing outright the Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners insist that they timely filed their Motion for Extension via LBC and registered mail. They further aver that the copy of the Motion for Extension filed through LBC is an advance copy for the CA. Thus, the CA erred in dismissing their petition. 20
The Court's Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, petitioners should have filed an appeal before the Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45; and it is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 21
The Court has held:
As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which in essence is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. ETHIDa
On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. It is an independent action that lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as the court aquo acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 22
Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the Court treats the present petition as a petition for review under Rule 45.
Here, the CA dismissed outright the Petition for Review under Rule 43 because the Motion for Extension was filed out of time.
There is no dispute that when the counsel for petitioners received the Ombudsman's Joint Order denying the supplemental to the motions for reconsideration on May 13, 2016, petitioners had until May 28, 2016 to file their Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the CA. Considering that May 28, 2016 fell on a Saturday, the last day to file the petition was the next working day or on May 30, 2016, a Monday.
The CA's reason for the outright dismissal of the Petition for Review was that the Motion for Extension sent via LBC, was received by the CA only on May 31, 2016. Hence, the CA had a reason to dismiss the petition for being filed out of time.
However, in their Motion for Reconsideration 23 dated July 19, 2016 before the CA, petitioners alleged that on May 30, 2016, they filed the Motion for Extension via LBC and registered mail under Registry Receipt No. 506-809-395 ZZ. They even indicated the Postal Money Orders 24 in their motion for reconsideration. 25
Notwithstanding, the CA ignored petitioners' explanation and centered its resolution on the filing of the Motion of Extension through LBC. The resolution did not even mention petitioners' assertion that they also filed the Motion for Extension via registered mail.
To the mind of the Court, the CA committed a reversible error when it neither discussed nor even mentioned in its Resolutions petitioners' assertion that they had also filed the motion via registered mail. This would have established the timely filing of the Motion for Extension on May 30, 2016.
Hence, the Court has to grant the petition and remand the case to the CA for adjudication on the merits.
The Court has time and again upheld the theory that the rules of procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice. 26 The courts must exercise utmost caution in dismissing cases on procedural grounds. After all, the rules of procedure are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice. 27
Lastly, the Court clarifies that the jurisdiction of the CA to review the decisions of the Ombudsman is limited to the administrative aspect only.
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Heirs of Margarita Vda. de Ventura, 28 the Court held:
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. 29
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated June 15, 2016 and December 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP No. 10108 UDK are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, Cebu City for adjudication on the merits in the administrative aspect only.
The filing of Reply as required in the Resolution dated January 16, 2019 is DISPENSED with. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-20.
2.Id. at 55-56; 70-74; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Germano Francisco D. Legazpi, concurring.
3.Id. at 34-54.
4.Id. at 7.
5.Id. at 23.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 23-24.
8.Id. at 21-26.
9.Id. at 25.
10.Id. at 7.
11.Id. at 8.
12.Id. at 27-30.
13. See Delivery Receipt dated May 30, 2016, id. at 32.
14.Id. at 57-58.
15. In a Resolution dated June 15, 2016, id. at 55-56.
16.Id. at 57-66.
17.Id. at 70-74.
18.Id. at 73.
19.Id. at 4-20.
20.Id. at 58-63.
21.Albor v. Court of Appeals, et al., 823 Phil. 901, 909 (2018).
22.Id. at 909-910.
23.Id. at 57-66.
24. In a total amount of P4,530.00, id. at 63.
25.Id. at 62-63.
26.Dr. Malixi, et al. v. Dr. Baltazar, 821 Phil. 423, 450 (2017).
27.People v. Lee, G.R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019.
28. 620 Phil. 1 (2009).
29.Id. at 8.