June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 161863 : June 16, 2010] AUGUSTO P. RUSTIA, PETITIONER VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION; FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB) OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS. :
[G.R. No. 161863 : June 16, 2010]
AUGUSTO P. RUSTIA, PETITIONER VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION; FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB) OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 161863 - AUGUSTO P. RUSTIA, petitioner versus COURT OF APPEALS Special Fifteenth Division; FACT-FINDING and INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman, respondents.
RESOLUTION
Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Resolutions[1] dated July 30, 2003 and December 12, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78112 dismissing the petition for review of the June 24, 2003 Order[2] of the Ombudsman which found petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from office for three (3) months without pay.
The following facts are undisputed:
On September 5, 2000, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed with the latter a complaint[3] criminally and administratively charging petitioner Augusto P. Rustia, then as member of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Intramuros Administration (IA), together with then BAC Chairman Merceditas C. de Sahagun, BAC members Manuela T. Waquiz and Dominador C. Ferrer, Jr., three (3) other resigned BAC members, and IA Research and Publication Division Chief Raidis J. Bassig, with violation of Section 3 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as amended, grave misconduct, conduct grossly prejudicial to best interest of the service and gross violation of regulation. The complaint alleged that petitioner and his co-respondents directly and actively participated in the award to Brand Asia, Ltd. of two (2) government contracts without public bidding.
By Decision[4] dated June 19, 2002, the Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the Ombudsman recommended that petitioner and his co-respondents be absolved from the administrative charges against them. Said decision, however, was subsequently disapproved by then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo in an Order[5] dated March 10, 2003. The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and meted him a penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay while petitioner's co-respondents were found guilty of grave misconduct and were meted the penalty of dismissal from service.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 10, 2003 Order. His motion was partly granted on June 24, 2003, and petitioner's penalty was reduced to three (3) months suspension.[6] His co-respondents' motion for reconsideration was also partly granted and their penalty was reduced to six (6) months suspension.
Believing that he should be exonerated from administrative liability, petitioner filed a petition for review[7] with the Court of Appeals and served a copy of the petition on the Ombudsman by registered mail a day before the deadline. Unfortunately however, his petition was not accompanied by a written explanation why personal service was not made on the Ombudsman and the only supporting document attached to his petition was the June 24, 2003 Order of the Ombudsman. Consequently, on July 30, 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition.
Petitioner moved to reconsider the appellate court's dismissal of his petition, but the appellate court denied his motion. Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his petition. He cites the following grounds for the allowance of the present petition for certiorari:
Petitioner's correct remedy was to appeal to this Court from the Resolutions dated July 30, 2003 and December 12, 2003 of the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Instead, he filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It is well settled that certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[9] There is no reason why the question being raised by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his petition for review, could not have been raised by him on appeal.[10] Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action for certiorari will not be entertained - remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive.[11]
Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading trie Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglemeniary period for filing a petition for review.[12] In this case, however, we find no reason to justify a liberal application of the rules. Having received the December 12, 2003 Resolutiqn of the Court of Appeals on December IS, 2003, petitioner had only up to January 2, 2004 within which to perfect an appeal. The petition was filed only on February 12, 2004 or forty one (41) days LATE without any reason therefor. This, of course, cannot be done.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 161863 - AUGUSTO P. RUSTIA, petitioner versus COURT OF APPEALS Special Fifteenth Division; FACT-FINDING and INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman, respondents.
Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Resolutions[1] dated July 30, 2003 and December 12, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78112 dismissing the petition for review of the June 24, 2003 Order[2] of the Ombudsman which found petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from office for three (3) months without pay.
The following facts are undisputed:
On September 5, 2000, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed with the latter a complaint[3] criminally and administratively charging petitioner Augusto P. Rustia, then as member of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Intramuros Administration (IA), together with then BAC Chairman Merceditas C. de Sahagun, BAC members Manuela T. Waquiz and Dominador C. Ferrer, Jr., three (3) other resigned BAC members, and IA Research and Publication Division Chief Raidis J. Bassig, with violation of Section 3 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as amended, grave misconduct, conduct grossly prejudicial to best interest of the service and gross violation of regulation. The complaint alleged that petitioner and his co-respondents directly and actively participated in the award to Brand Asia, Ltd. of two (2) government contracts without public bidding.
By Decision[4] dated June 19, 2002, the Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the Ombudsman recommended that petitioner and his co-respondents be absolved from the administrative charges against them. Said decision, however, was subsequently disapproved by then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo in an Order[5] dated March 10, 2003. The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and meted him a penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay while petitioner's co-respondents were found guilty of grave misconduct and were meted the penalty of dismissal from service.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 10, 2003 Order. His motion was partly granted on June 24, 2003, and petitioner's penalty was reduced to three (3) months suspension.[6] His co-respondents' motion for reconsideration was also partly granted and their penalty was reduced to six (6) months suspension.
Believing that he should be exonerated from administrative liability, petitioner filed a petition for review[7] with the Court of Appeals and served a copy of the petition on the Ombudsman by registered mail a day before the deadline. Unfortunately however, his petition was not accompanied by a written explanation why personal service was not made on the Ombudsman and the only supporting document attached to his petition was the June 24, 2003 Order of the Ombudsman. Consequently, on July 30, 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition.
Petitioner moved to reconsider the appellate court's dismissal of his petition, but the appellate court denied his motion. Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his petition. He cites the following grounds for the allowance of the present petition for certiorari:
The petition should be dismissed.
- Personal service was not practicable given the distance between the office of his former counsel in Makati and that of the Ombudsman in Quezon City and the approaching deadline to file the petition for review. Further, he explained that under Rule 43, the respondent was under no obligation to respond to his petition1 until Court of Appeals requires it to file its comment within 10 days from notice (Section 8). Thus, there was no compelling need that the Ombudsman be served personally of the petition;
- His petition was accompanied by a certified true copy of the Order of the Ombudsman. In his motion for reconsideration, he attached certified true copies of the supporting documents;
- Dismissal of petitioner's petition for review would be unjust considering that petitions for review of his co-defendants who were suspended for a longer period of time of 6 months (his is 3 months) were not dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
- Significant legal issues have been raised by the petitioner (as well by his co-defendants in their respective petitions to the Court of Appeals) and substantial justice requires that these legal issues be decided on the merits.[8]
Petitioner's correct remedy was to appeal to this Court from the Resolutions dated July 30, 2003 and December 12, 2003 of the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Instead, he filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It is well settled that certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[9] There is no reason why the question being raised by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his petition for review, could not have been raised by him on appeal.[10] Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action for certiorari will not be entertained - remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive.[11]
Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading trie Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglemeniary period for filing a petition for review.[12] In this case, however, we find no reason to justify a liberal application of the rules. Having received the December 12, 2003 Resolutiqn of the Court of Appeals on December IS, 2003, petitioner had only up to January 2, 2004 within which to perfect an appeal. The petition was filed only on February 12, 2004 or forty one (41) days LATE without any reason therefor. This, of course, cannot be done.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 64-65, 121-123; Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Jose C. Mendoza (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 24-26.
[3] Ombudsman records, pp. 0001-0004.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 46-57.
[5] Id. at 58-61.
[6] Id. at 24-26.
[7] Id. at 3-23.
[8] Rollo, pp. 13-14.
[9] Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (Special Sixth Division), G.R. No. 106153, July 14, 1997, 275 SCRA 413,426.
[10] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129846, January 18, 2000, 322 SCRA 81, 86-87.
[11] Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165471, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 137, 151, citing Iloilo La Filipina Uygongco Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170244, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 178, 189.
[12] Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164561, August 30, 2006, 500 SCRA 226, 237.
