Nidoy v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, the Vice Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Rosario, La Union, filed a criminal complaint against the Mayor and Treasurer of the same municipality. The complaint alleged malversation, technical malversation, falsification of public document, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019. The core of the dispute involved the alleged improper deposit and disbursement of P1,351,000.00 received from the Department of Budget and Management as the municipality's share in the Tobacco Excise Tax Fund under Republic Act No. 7171. Petitioners claimed the funds were deposited into the General Fund instead of a dedicated account and that P50,000.00 was improperly transferred from the Tobacco Excise Tax Account to the General Fund. They also alleged falsification of a certification regarding the availability of these funds. 2. Procedural History: The criminal complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as OMB-1-99-0841. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the complaint on September 14, 1999, due to insufficient evidence. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on February 23, 2000. Subsequently, on June 28, 2000, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 59422. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition for being filed out of time, ruling that a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should have been filed within fifteen days from notice of the Ombudsman's resolution. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure with the Supreme Court, questioning the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their case. They raised two main issues: (A) which rule, Rule 43 or Rule 65, is applicable when elevating a resolution of the Ombudsman in a criminal complaint to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and (B) which court, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction to hear such a petition. The Supreme Court, in its decision, dismissed the petition, holding that the proper remedy was an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time, thus being a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a resolution of the Ombudsman in a criminal complaint before the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It held that the proper action to question the resolution of the Ombudsman before the Court of Appeals was an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Since the petition for certiorari was filed as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal, it could not be given due course.
Ratio Decidendi
On the proper remedy to question an Ombudsman's resolution: The Court reiterated that the appropriate mode of elevating a resolution of the Ombudsman to the Court of Appeals is through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule specifically governs appeals from judgments or final orders of the Ombudsman in administrative, quasi-judicial, or other similar cases. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy that is only available when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the petitioners had a remedy by way of appeal, which they failed to avail of within the reglementary period. Therefore, resorting to certiorari was improper and could not be used to circumvent the rules on appeal. The Court emphasized that the procedural rules must be followed to ensure the orderly administration of justice and to prevent the circumvention of legal deadlines. On the timeliness of the petition: The Court found that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time. Petitioners received a copy of the Court of Appeals' Resolution on November 10, 2000. Under Rule 45, they had fifteen (15) days from notice within which to file a petition for review, meaning the deadline was November 25, 2000. The petition for certiorari was filed on December 6, 2000, which was beyond the reglementary period for filing an appeal. The Court stressed that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is a jurisdictional requirement, and failure to comply therewith results in the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the petition for certiorari, which was filed as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, could not be given due course.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal by petition for review under Rule 45, when the latter is the proper mode of elevating a resolution of the Ombudsman to the Court of Appeals.