G.R. No. 154952. July 16, 2012 - Supreme Court of the Philippines

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 154952to glaring injustice to respondents; and that dismissal of appeals purely ontechnical grounds is frowned upon especially if it will result to injustice.Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in aResolution dated August 28, 2002.Hence, this petition for review. Petitioners raise the following issues:WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS ERRED WHEN IT GAVE DUE COURSE TORESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR REVIEW DESPITE BEING FILEDBEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF TEN (10) DAYS SETBY SECTION 27 OF REPUBLIC ACT 6770.WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERREDWHEN IT RULED THAT THE GRATUITIES GRANTED TOPETITIONERS DIMAGIBA, MENDOZA AND RASCO BY HSDCCONSTITUTE DOUBLE COMPENSATION PROHIBITED UNDERARTICLE IX (B), SECTION 8 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTIONDESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID GRATUITIES CLEARLY FALLUNDER THE EXCEPTION UNDER THE SAME PROVISION. 26Anent the first issue, petitioners contend that the CA erred in actingon the petition which was filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period forfiling the same as provided under Section 27 of RA 6770. They claim thatrespondents received the Ombudsman order denying their motion forreconsideration on August 25, 2000 and filed a motion for extension of timewith the CA on September 11, 2000, which was the 15 th day from receipt ofthe order, relying on our ruling in Fabian v. Desierto 27 and Rule 43 of theRules of Court. Petitioners cite the cases of Lapid v. CA 28 and Barata v.Abalos, Jr. 29 to support the application of the 10-day period for filing thepetition in the CA from receipt of the Ombudsman order.We are not persuaded.26272829Rollo, p. 30.Supra note 25.G.R. No. 142261, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA 738.G.R. No. 142888, June 6, 2001, 358 SCRA 575.
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 154952Section 27 of RA 6770 provides as follows:Section 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. - All provisionaryorders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective andexecutory.x x x xFindings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supportedby substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decisionimposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of notmore than one month's salary shall be final and unappealable.In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives ordecisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to theSupreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days fromreceipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial ofthe motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules ofCourt.The then Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsmanlikewise contain a similar provision. Section 7, Rule III of AdministrativeOrder (A.O.) No. 07 30 provides as follows:Sec. 7. Finality and Execution of Decision - Where the respondent isabsolved of the charge and in case of conviction where the penalty imposedis public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or afine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executoryand unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become final afterthe expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent,unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, shall havebeen filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. 6770.In Fabian v. Desierto, 31 we declared unconstitutional Section 27 ofRA 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of A.O. No. 7 and any other provision oflaw implementing the aforesaid Act and insofar as they provide for appealsin administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman tothe Supreme Court. We held that such provision was violative of Section 30,Article VI of the Constitution as it expanded our appellate jurisdictionwithout our advice and concurrence; and that it was also inconsistent withSection 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which provides that a petition forreview on certiorari shall apply only to a review of judgments or final3031Dated April 10, 1990.Supra note 25, at 489.
Page 1 and 2: 31\epubhc of tbe ~btltpptnes~upreme
Page 3 and 4: Decision - 3 - G.R. No. 154952effec
Page 5 and 6: Decision - 5 - G.R. No. 154952Porte
Page 7 and 8: Decision - 7 - G.R. No. 154952Respo
Page 9: Decision - 9 - G.R. No. 154952Respo
Page 13 and 14: Decision - 13 - G.R. No. 154952This
Page 15 and 16: Decision - 15 - G.R. No. 154952As p
Page 17 and 18: Decision - 17- G.R. No. 154952Petit

G.R. No. 154952. July 16, 2012 - Supreme Court of the Philippines

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?