G.R. No. 201320 - WILSON T. LIM, VS. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO) AND P/S INSP. EUSTIQUIO FUENTES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the aforesaid discussions, respondent-movant Fuentes' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the criminal charges for violation of Republic Act 3019, Sec. 3(e) and Estafa Thru Falsification against said respondent-movant are hereby DISMISSED . Respondent-movant Pangandag's Motion for Reconsideration, on the other hand, is hereby DENIED and the charges for violation of Republic Act 3019, Sec. 3(e) and Estafa Thru Falsification against said respondent-movant, together with his co-respondents Raquim Salvo, Sanakira Dianaton, Azis Lagundab, Potri Utak, Avelino Intal, Fred Simbrano, Alicia Estoque, Ramon Bongaros, Michael Sandoval, Adela Pasbal Marabong, Marlon Hamoy, Hindawi Yonos and Miguel Mejos AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . [4] Lim and Lazo, therefore, moved for partial reconsideration. On September 7, 2011, the Deputy Ombudsman denied their motion and affirmed its March 31, 2011 Order. [5] However, since Lazo had already left the country, Lim filed the petition on April 23, 2012 by himself. The petition is meritorious. Lim alleges that the Deputy Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded its own Rules of Procedure in granting Fuentes's Motion for Reconsideration and dismissing the criminal complaint against him. Under the Rules of Procedure of the OMB, [6] a motion for reconsideration of an approved order or resolution shall be filed within five (5) days from notice. Settled is the rule that procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases, thus, courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, it must be emphasized once again that the same was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. In general, procedural rules, like all rules, should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. The rules were instituted to be faithfully complied with, and allowing them to be ignored or lightly dismissed to suit the convenience of a party should not be condoned. Such rules, often derided as merely technical, are to be relaxed only in the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. Their liberal construction in exceptional situations should then rest on a showing of justifiable reasons and of at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with them. [7] The Court wish