G.R. NO. 154678 - CORAZON C. BALBASTRO, VS. NESTOR JUNIO, BRIAN CASASOLA, KENT HUERGULA, JASON MARTIN JARDINIANO, CYRIL PONCLARA, EDILZAR[1] AMALLER, MELVIN MONDEJAR, AND FRANCIS SORON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, and finding them guilty of Dishonesty for making it appear in the above-mentioned payrolls that the complainants had received the amount indicated therein opposite their names, respondents Corazon C. Balbastro, Rudy T. Carbonera and Gilda C. Gulmatico are hereby meted the penalty of Dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. Lydia E. Ocate, on the other hand, is hereby Suspended for one month without salary and other benefits for being inefficient and incompetent in the performance of her duties as Acting Disbursing Officer. SO DECIDED. [12] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman on July 20, 2001. [13] On April 12, 2002, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP. No. 70249 claiming that the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in rendering its decision despite the absence of an administrative complaint; [14] and in ruling that petitioner waived her right to adduce evidence. [15] She also alleged that the prosecutor was not impartial; [16] that the Ombudsman's decision violates par. 3, Sec. 13, Art. XI of the Constitution which grants the Ombudsman only the power to recommend sanctions against erring officials; [17] and that it is not supported by facts and evidence, [18] contravenes basic principles in criminal law [19] and violates petitioner's right to due process. [20] On May 2, 2002, the CA rendered the herein assailed Resolution dismissing her petition, thus: x x x [I]nstead of appealing the decision by filing a petition for review within the reglementary period, petitioner instituted this special civil action for certiorari fifty-two (52) days from receipt of the denial of her motion for reconsideration below. The instant petition is not allowed to proceed under the applicable rules, as the proper remedy from the decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative case is appeal by petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Civil Procedure. Such petition for review should be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appealed decision, resolution, or final order, or denial of the motion for reconsideration. Replacing the remedy of appeal with a petition for certiorari, as done here by the petitioner, is not a proper recourse, considering that the special civil action for certiorari cannot be made a substitute for appeal or lapsed appeal. Be it remembered that the right to appeal is not a constitutional or inherent right it is a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the law. [21] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated July 16, 2002, ruling as follows: [22] A review of the records vis-a-vis the arguments on motion for reconsideration offer no cogent reason to reverse our earlier r