ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 143092.� June 28, 2004]
FABIAN vs. AGUSTIN
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28 2004.
"G.R. No. 143092� (TERESITA G. FABIAN, Petitioner, versus NESTOR V. AGUSTIN, Respondent.)
For resolution are: (1) respondent's motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated February 14, 2003; and (2) petitioner's comment on the motion.
Basically, respondent, in the present motion, contends that our Decision failed to discuss the procedural issue of whether petitioner, as complainant in this administrative case, can appeal from the decision of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint. Respondent insists that she can not. Hence, we should have dismissed the instant petition.
When the issue was initially brought before us in G.R. No. 1297421 we referred the case for disposition on the merits to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Understandably, such action necessarily elucidates that a party in an administrative case can appeal from the decision of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
SO ORDERED. *
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Teresita Fabian vs. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470. This is the leading case wherein we ruled that as a consequence of our ratiocination that Section 27 of R. A. No. 6770 or Ombudsman Act of 1989 (providing that all orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in all administrative cases may be appealed to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari) should be struck down as unconstitutional. Henceforth, new appeals should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
