Salvacion v. Manlapas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Belen A. Salvacion, a Bookkeeper of the Municipality of Baleno, Masbate, prepared documents for her retirement on December 31, 2002. She filed an application for retirement benefits and terminal leave pay on December 10, 2002, which was approved by respondent Leo H. Manlapas, the Municipal Mayor. On March 18, 2003, Salvacion submitted a Disbursement Voucher for P162,291.46 representing her Terminal Leave Pay. Despite numerous follow-ups, payment was not released. On September 10, 2003, Salvacion sent a letter requesting the release of funds, stating her dire need for money for medical check-ups. No response was made by Manlapas. Procedural History: Salvacion filed a complaint against Manlapas for violation of Section 3(e) and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Provincial Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaint, believing Manlapas's defense that Salvacion had failed to remit P7,564.38. Salvacion appealed to the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, which recommended finding probable cause against Manlapas. Manlapas's motion for reconsideration was denied. An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 28111. The Sandiganbayan initially denied Manlapas's omnibus motion to determine probable cause and suspend arraignment. However, on February 23, 2006, the Sandiganbayan reversed its earlier resolution, finding no probable cause and dismissing the case against Manlapas. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Manlapas had sufficient justification to refuse payment due to an alleged cash shortage and the invalidity of the certification of no accountability issued by a former OIC Municipal Treasurer. The Sandiganbayan's resolution denying reconsideration was received by Salvacion on August 22, 2006. The Petition: Petitioner Salvacion filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan's resolutions dismissing the case and to reinstate Criminal Case No. 28111. She argued that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by relying on an invalid personnel order, overlooking Manlapas's continuing refusal to pay, and unduly interfering with the Ombudsman's findings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case against respondent Manlapas. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that respondent Manlapas had sufficient justification to refuse payment of petitioner Salvacion's terminal leave pay. Whether the Sandiganbayan unduly interfered with the findings of probable cause made by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Whether a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy when an appeal under Rule 45 is available and the petition is filed out of time.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. It held that the petitioner availed herself of the wrong remedy and filed the petition beyond the reglementary period for an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the petitioner failed to convince it that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion that would oust it of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case, and the petitioner was essentially challenging errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. On Manlapas' justification to refuse payment: The Court found that the petitioner failed to convince it that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion that would oust it of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case, and the petitioner was essentially challenging errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. On undue interference with the Ombudsman's findings: The Court found that the petitioner failed to convince it that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion that would oust it of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case, and the petitioner was essentially challenging errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. On the propriety of the remedy and timeliness: The Court held that the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dismissing Criminal Case No. 28111 constituted a final disposition of the case, making it subject to an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitioner, however, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, which is an extraordinary remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment. The Court emphasized that certiorari is only available when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal under Rule 45 was available, the resort to Rule 65 was improper. Furthermore, the petition was filed 56 days after receipt of the Sandiganbayan's resolution denying reconsideration, which was well beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing an appeal under Rule 45. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation for the delay. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the decision final and executory.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45. The former is for correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, while the latter is for correcting errors of judgment. Resorting to certiorari when an appeal is available and timely is a procedural misstep that warrants dismissal.