G.R. No. 147995 - JESSIE MACALALAG, VS. OMBUDSMAN, PABLO ALORO AND COURT OF APPEALS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the investigator was constrained to resolve the case on the basis solely of the evidence furnished by the private respondent. It was established that the private respondent, a resident of Bacolod City, is a retired employee receiving a monthly pension from the Social Security System. As of September 15, 1996, however, he failed to receive his pension checks corresponding to the months of April, May and July, 1996. When he went to Bacolod City Post Office to verify about the matter, he learned that his missing checks were taken by the petitioner, an employee of the Philippine Postal Corporation in Bacolod City, who endorsed and encashed them for his personal benefit. When confronted by the private respondent, the petitioner issued to the former his personal check in the amount of P7,320.00 in payment of the checks. However, when the private complainant presented the check for payment, it was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Nonetheless, the private-respondent executed an affidavit of desistance for the purpose of seeking the dismissal of the case against the petitioner. But said affidavit was rejected and, instead, the petitioner was declared administratively liable and ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from government service. The petitioner sought a consideration but the same was denied. The petitioner next appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari. However, in the light of the decision in Fabian vs. Desierto, [(295 SCRA 470) 1998] and Administrative Circular No. 99-2-01-SC, the appeal was dismissed. In the interim, the adverse Ombudsman decision attained finality. [1] Petitioner filed an action for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the gross ignorance, negligence and incompetence of petitioners former lawyer deprived petitioner of his day in court which (would) justify the annulment of the assailed Resolution and Order. The appellate court, however, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction thereover; it ratiocinated: x x x Under Section 9 (2) of B.P. Blg. 129, this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction only over actions for annulment of judgments of the Regional Trial Courts. Nothing is mentioned therein about judgments of other courts, much less of the Ombudsman or any quasi-judicial body. The case of Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470 (1998), vested this Court only with exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary actions which should be taken via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [2] Undaunted, petitioner has filed the instant petition for review, arguing that Section 47 of the Rules of Court on annulment of judgments, refers to Regional Trial Courts in its generic sense that should thus include quasi-judicial bodies whose functions or