Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49787:gr-154678-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:05:35+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 154678 - Corazon C. Balbastro v. Nestor Junio, et al.
CORAZON C. BALBASTRO Petitioner, v. NESTOR JUNIO, BRIAN CASASOLA, KENT HUERGULA, JASON MARTIN JARDINIANO, JOEBERT ESPULGAR, PRUDENCIO MACALALAG, CYRIL PONCLARA, EDILZAR1 AMALLER, MELVIN MONDEJAR, and FRANCIS SORON, Respondents.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 2, 20023 which dismissed Corazon C. Balbastro's Petition for Certiorari on the ground that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lapsed appeal; and its Resolution dated July 16, 20024 denying her motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, and finding them guilty of Dishonesty for making it appear in the above-mentioned payrolls that the complainants had received the amount indicated therein opposite their names, respondents Corazon C. Balbastro, Rudy T. Carbonera and Gilda C. Gulmatico are hereby meted the penalty of Dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. Lydia E. Ocate, on the other hand, is hereby Suspended for one month without salary and other benefits for being inefficient and incompetent in the performance of her duties as Acting Disbursing Officer.
x x x [I]nstead of appealing the decision by filing a Petition for Review within the reglementary period, petitioner instituted this special civil action for certiorari fifty-two (52) days from receipt of the denial of her motion for reconsideration below.
The instant petition is not allowed to proceed under the applicable rules, as the proper remedy from the decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative case is appeal by Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Civil Procedure. Such Petition for Review should be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appealed decision, resolution, or final order, or denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Replacing the remedy of appeal with a petition for certiorari, as done here by the petitioner, is not a proper recourse, considering that the special civil action for certiorari cannot be made a substitute for appeal or lapsed appeal.
A review of the records vis-a-vis the arguments on motion for reconsideration offer no cogent reason to reverse our earlier ruling. The complaints filed against the petitioner clearly, and in no uncertain terms aimed to criminally and administratively charge the petitioner for improprieties committed by her in the performance of her duties as Principal III of the Iloilo City National High School. Records also show that petitioner was given the opportunity to answer these charges, and in fact, she did so in due course. Petitioner was even able to present witnesses and evidence to defend herself against such criminal and administrative charges.
Clearly, the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the petitioner administratively liable was rendered within its powers and duties, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6770.
The proper remedy to appeal said decision of the Ombudsman, therefore, is a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and not the petition for certiorari chosen by petitioner. All other arguments raised by petitioner are without merit.
Preliminarily, the issue that must be resolved by this Court is whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed before it by petitioner.
This finding is well supported by the records as the complaints filed by respondents before the Ombudsman clearly stated in bold letters that they were instituting "criminal" and "administrative" cases against petitioner and the other school officials concerned.40 The orders issued by the Ombudsman directing petitioner to file her counter-affidavit to the complaints against her also contained criminal as well as administrative case numbers.41 Petitioner's allegations on this matter therefore have no basis.
First, they are properly subject of the appeal via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court which petitioner had lost for not having filed such petition with the CA within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Decision of the Ombudsman.
Second, as the Court had earlier ruled, the filing of a Petition for Certiorari 52 days after receipt is not a substitute for lost appeal, the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are based on substantial evidence which petitioner had to refute by competent evidence.
Third, there is no showing that the Ombudsman was capricious or arbitrary in the imposition of different penalties on petitioner and her co-respondents in the administrative case.
In this case, the Ombudsman found petitioner, together with Gulmatico and Carbonera, guilty of dishonesty for using payrolls in the names of private complainants in order to hide irregularities of the cash advances made by the school through Ocate. It also found Ocate liable, although for a lesser offense, as her culpability stems from following the orders of her superiors.
Th[e] testimony [of Ocate] has neither been contradicted nor denied by the other respondents. And absent any evidence to the contrary, these are sufficient to support a finding of guilt against the respondents.
It appeared from the foregoing attestation that Rudy Carbonera, with the apparent connivance of Corazon Balbastro and Gilda Gulmatico, had prepared the above-mentioned payrolls in order to hide the irregularities of the cash advances of Lydia Ocate and justify their expenditures. And having prepared the same logic dictates that he should have been the one who listed the names of the herein complainants therein, even knowing fully well that they did not render the services to the school. And Corazon Balbastro and Gilda Gulmatico connived and confederated with him in this unlawful act when they told and assured Lydia Ocate that the signatures in the payrolls were genuine. Corazon Balbastro even signified her assurance by signing the payrolls. And Corazon Balbastro and Gilda Gulmatico had reason to conceal the irregular cash advances of Lydia Ocate because they had taken part in these transactions. As claimed by the latter, it was Balbastro who ordered her to make cash advances and it was Gulmatico who would receive the amount. Somehow or another they had knowledge of how this money had been spent, which was certainly not for the salaries of the complainants.
In fine, the Court finds no error in the rulings of the CA and the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
1 Spelled as "Eldizar" in other parts of the records.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and concurred in by Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Perlita J. Tria Tirona.
5 "(1) preparation, labor for costume Ati-atihan 1999; (2) repair of toilet for student use; (3) labor for costume ati-atihan 1999; and (4) finishing of props, decorations, costume of participants ati-atihan 1999."
6 CA rollo, pp. 72-91; See also CA rollo, pp. 103-112 and rollo, pp. 42-47.
7 See rollo, pp. 37-41.
8 CA rollo, pp. 113-117.
9 Rollo, p. 49 (Ombudsman's Decision, p. 12).
13 CA rollo, pp. 120-126.
14 Id. at 8, 11.
24 "The Ombudsman Act of 1989."
25 429 Phil. 47 (2002); See Reply, rollo, p. 113.
32 Coronel v. Desierto, 448 Phil. 894, 902 (2003); Fabian v. Desierto, 356 Phil. 787, 804 (1998).
33 Gonzales v. Rosas, G.R. No. 145363, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 488, 494.
35 G.R. No. 152992, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 384.
37 CA rollo, pp. 201-202.
43 Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160675, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 92, 119.
44 Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 652.
46 G.R. No. 161629, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 437, 448-449.
47 Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, id. at 448-449.
48 Estarija v. Ranada, supra note 44 at 673-674.
51 Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos, G.R. No. 166116, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 463, 470; Office of the Ombudsman v. Coronel, G.R. No. 164460, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 392, 406.
52 Apolinario v. Flores, G.R. No. 152780, January 22, 2007; Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos, supra note 51, at 472.
53 Laxina, Sr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 153155, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 542, 555.

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.