Buntag v. Paga
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Corazon G. Buntag, a Social Welfare Assistant, was designated chairman for the Universal Children's Month event. She falsified six reimbursement receipts totaling P1,200.00, falsely indicating payment of honoraria to six judges who did not attend. The funds were instead used to reimburse Ms. Felisa Mantilla for decoration materials she advanced. 2. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) initially found Buntag guilty of six counts of Falsification of Official Document and ordered her dismissal. This was later modified to a one-year suspension. Buntag's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA) pursuant to Fabian v. Desierto. The CA affirmed the Ombudsman's decision, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court noted that a petition for review under Rule 45 was the proper remedy for appealing the CA's final judgment. The petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for a Rule 45 appeal, and the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA or the Ombudsman in imposing the penalty of one year suspension, considering Buntag's length of service and unblemished record.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the penalty of one year suspension imposed by the Ombudsman.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the penalty of one year suspension imposed by the Ombudsman.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The petition filed before the Supreme Court was one for certiorari under Rule 65. However, the proper remedy to assail the final judgments of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court reiterated the general rule that certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for a lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. The exceptions to this rule, such as when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate, or when the broader interests of justice so require, were not present in this case. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was procedurally infirm. On grave abuse of discretion: Even if the petition were considered under Rule 65, it must be shown that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not mere errors of judgment. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that she falsified the reimbursement receipts. Her contention was solely on the penalty imposed. The Court found that the Ombudsman, in reducing the penalty from dismissal to one year suspension, had already considered the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner's 23 years of service and her unblemished record as a first-time offender. This reduction was in line with recent jurisprudence where similar mitigating circumstances were considered to reduce the penalty of dismissal to suspension. Thus, the penalty imposed was deemed proper and not a result of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost remedy of an ordinary appeal under Rule 45, absent any exceptions such as when public welfare dictates, the broader interests of justice require, the writs issued are null, or the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. Moreover, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, it must be shown that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not mere errors of judgment.