Gabutina v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: John Kenneth T. Moreno filed a complaint against Patrick U. Gabutina, Chief of Staff of Congressman Oscar S. Moreno, and Metodio G. Baldivino, Jr., Manager for Infrastructure Projects of Congressman Moreno. Moreno alleged that Baldivino demanded Php 500,000.00 as an advance "SOP" (presumably for Congressman Moreno) to ensure Moreno would be awarded a Farm to Market Project. Gabutina allegedly confirmed this amount and later received part of it, assuring Moreno the project was forthcoming. Moreno deposited the money, and later an additional Php 150,000.00 for another project, into accounts of Baldivino and Gabutina. Despite assurances and specific project details provided by Gabutina, the projects were awarded to another contractor, and the money was not returned. 2. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) found Gabutina guilty of Grave Misconduct and receiving a fee in the course of official duties, ordering his dismissal from service. Gabutina's initial Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, he filed a Motion for Leave to File and Admit a Second Motion for Reconsideration, a Second Motion for Reconsideration, and a Petition for Review with the Ombudsman, all of which were treated as prohibited pleadings and denied, with the Ombudsman emphasizing that only one motion for reconsideration is allowed and that the October 29, 2004 Decision had become final. Gabutina then filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, which was also denied with finality. He then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it outright due to technical infirmities and the finality of the Ombudsman's decision. The CA denied Gabutina's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. 3. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the CA's February 15, 2012 Resolution dismissing Gabutina's Petition for Review and the December 17, 2012 Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration. Gabutina argues that the CA should have given due course and consideration to his Petition for Review. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, holding that the CA did not err in dismissing Gabutina's Petition for Review. The Court emphasized that Gabutina's multiple prohibited pleadings filed with the Ombudsman did not toll the reglementary period for appeal, and his Petition for Review was filed over six years beyond the 15-day period allowed by law, rendering the Ombudsman's October 29, 2004 Decision final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioner Gabutina's Petition for Review due to technical infirmities and the finality of the Office of the Ombudsman's decision. Whether the multiple pleadings filed by Gabutina before the Office of the Ombudsman tolled the reglementary period for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Petition for Review filed by Gabutina. The October 29, 2004 Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman finding Patrick U. Gabutina guilty of Grave Misconduct and of Violating Anti-Graft laws, and dismissing him from the service with all its accessory penalties, is deemed FINAL and EXECUTORY.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Review: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Gabutina's Petition for Review. The dismissal was based on technical infirmities and the fact that the assailed decision of the Office of the Ombudsman had already attained finality. Gabutina's subsequent filings, including a second motion for reconsideration, a petition for review treated as a third motion for reconsideration, and a motion for reinvestigation, were all prohibited pleadings under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. These prohibited pleadings did not have the effect of tolling the reglementary period for appeal. On the issue of whether the multiple pleadings tolled the reglementary period for appeal: The Court affirmed that the filing of prohibited pleadings, such as second or third motions for reconsideration and motions for reinvestigation, does not stop the running of the reglementary period for appeal. Administrative Order No. 07, Section 5(g), explicitly lists dilatory motions, including second motions for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation, as prohibited pleadings. Such pleadings are to be stricken off the records. The Court emphasized that Gabutina had only 15 days from receipt of the February 18, 2005 Order (March 17, 2005) to file a petition for review with the CA, which would have been until April 1, 2005. Instead, he filed multiple pleadings with the Ombudsman, and his eventual Petition for Review with the CA on December 21, 2011, was filed more than six years late. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rules given the extensive delay and Gabutina's repeated disregard for procedural rules. The Court reiterated that access to courts has limits, and Gabutina's actions constituted a mockery of the judicial system.
Main Doctrine
Multiple, dilatory, and prohibited pleadings filed before the Office of the Ombudsman do not toll the reglementary period for filing an appeal, and such filings do not prevent the Office of the Ombudsman's decision from attaining finality. A petition for review filed beyond the reglementary period, due to the filing of prohibited pleadings, should be dismissed outright.