G.R. No. 142888 ; June 6, 2001
EVELIO P. BARATA, petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN ABALOS, JR., OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Evelio P. Barata, head of the San Miguel Bukid Homeowners’ Association, Inc., filed an administrative complaint against respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr., then Mayor of Mandaluyong City, for violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The complaint alleged that Abalos failed to act promptly on demands for the completion of a housing project for the association’s members. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence in a Decision dated July 21, 1999, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated September 10, 1999, received by petitioner on October 15, 1999. Petitioner initially filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 140272), which was denied on November 24, 1999, in view of A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC and the ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto. Petitioner received this denial on January 18, 2000. On February 1, 2000, petitioner filed a “Petition for Review on Certiorari” with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on two grounds: (1) the Ombudsman’s decision exonerating respondent mayor is not appealable, and (2) the petition was filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the Ombudsman’s decision exonerating respondent Abalos, Jr. of an administrative charge is not appealable.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. It held that the Ombudsman’s decision absolving the respondent of the charge is final and unappealable. While the Fabian vs. Desierto ruling invalidated the specific provision in Section 27 of R.A. 6770 that allowed appeals to the Supreme Court and designated the Court of Appeals as the proper forum under Rule 43, it did not affect the other provisions of Section 27, including those on finality. Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) explicitly states that a decision absolving the respondent of the charge is final and unappealable. This is implicit in, and with greater reason than, the finality provisions of Section 27 of R.A. 6770. Furthermore, even assuming the decision was appealable, the petition was filed out of time. The Ombudsman’s Order denying reconsideration was received on October 15, 1999. Applying Section 27 of R.A. 6770, an appeal via petition for certiorari under Rule 45 should have been filed within ten (10) days, or by October 25, 1999. The filing with the Court of Appeals on February 1, 2000, was beyond the reglementary period, and the earlier filing of a petition with the Supreme Court did not toll the running of the period to file with the Court of Appeals.