ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 160687.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 12 2004.
G.R. No. 160687 (Ricardo Reyes vs. Aluino P. Tolentino.)
Before this Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by the
petitioner from the
The motion is not meritorious.
The last paragraph in Section 27 of R.A. 6770 [2] cralaw relied upon by the petitioner, which provides that in all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court, was rendered invalid and of no effect in the Case of Fabian vs. Desierto [3] cralaw . The Court therein laid down the rule that said Section 27 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases without violating the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its advice and concurrence; hence, appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be brought to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43. Conformably, the petitioner should have appealed the assailed resolutions of the Ombudsman to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court instead of appealing to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition for being a wrong remedy is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this Court's January 19, 2004 Resolution is hereby DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Records, p. 150.
[2] cralaw Section 27 of R.A. 6770 provides :
SECTION 27. Effectivity and finality of Decisions. - (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory.
A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of written notice and shall be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
(1) New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the order, directive or decision;
(2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant. The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three (3) days from filing; Provided, That only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary shall be final and unappealable.
In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance; with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The above rules may be amended or modified by the Office of the Ombudsman as the interest of justice may require.
[3] cralaw 295 SCRA 470(1998)
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
