GR 143664; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143664 ; June 30, 2006
MARISON C. BASUEL, Petitioner, vs. FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB) represented by DIRECTOR AGAPITO B. ROSALES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Marison Basuel, an employee of the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO), was administratively charged with neglect of duty and dishonesty. The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau reported unauthorized pension check encodings and payments. While nine unauthorized payments were traced to her computer’s supplementary table, petitioner denied the charges. She claimed her husband, a co-employee, used her computer access code without her knowledge to make the entries.
The Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of neglect of duty. It ruled that by divulging her confidential computer access code to her husband, she failed in her duty to maintain its secrecy, enabling the unauthorized transactions. She was suspended for six months. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA dismissed it for failure to attach a certified true copy of the Ombudsman’s decision as required by the rules, despite a prior directive. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, explaining her counsel inadvertently attached a different order and subsequently submitted the correct decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the technical ground of non-compliance with procedural rules.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in strict accordance with procedural rules. Rule 43, Section 6 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires the petition for review to be accompanied by a certified true copy of the assailed decision. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this mandatory requirement and the CA’s subsequent directive was a valid ground for dismissal.
The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rules. The negligence of counsel in attaching the wrong document is generally binding on the client. The claim of good faith or lack of prejudice to the respondent does not justify non-compliance. Furthermore, on the substantive merits, the Ombudsman’s finding of neglect of duty was supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s act of revealing her confidential access code to her husband, which facilitated the unauthorized encodings, constituted a clear failure in her duty of diligence. Procedural rules are essential for the orderly administration of justice, and their strict application in this case was proper.