G.R. No. 147995 ; March 4, 2004
Jessie Macalalag, petitioner, vs. Ombudsman, Pablo Aloro and Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jessie Macalalag, an employee of the Philippine Postal Corporation, was administratively charged with dishonesty before the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas for allegedly encashing the pension checks of private respondent Pablo Aloro. Despite several orders, Macalalag failed to file an answer or position paper. The Ombudsman proceeded to resolve the case based on Aloro’s evidence, finding Macalalag liable and ordering his dismissal from service. Although Aloro later executed an affidavit of desistance, it was rejected. Macalalag’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Macalalag initially appealed to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, but this was dismissed in light of the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, which held that appeals from Ombudsman administrative decisions should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s decision attained finality. Macalalag then filed an action for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, attributing his failure to properly participate in the administrative proceedings to the gross negligence of his former counsel.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over an action for annulment of a final and executory administrative decision of the Office of the Ombudsman.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, affirming the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on statutory construction and the finality of judgments. Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs annulment of judgments, explicitly applies only to final judgments or orders of Regional Trial Courts in civil actions. The rule is a limited exception to the doctrine of finality, permissible only on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. It cannot be extended by implication to cover decisions of quasi-judicial bodies like the Ombudsman.
Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act) specifically provides the remedy of appeal from Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases. Following Fabian v. Desierto, the proper appellate review is via a petition for review under Rule 43 filed with the Court of Appeals. The law is silent on a separate remedy of annulment for such decisions. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and the absence of a statutory grant for annulment precludes its availability. Furthermore, Macalalag had already availed of an appeal (though improperly filed with the Supreme Court), which bars a subsequent resort to annulment. Allegations of counsel’s negligence, absent a showing of gross or palpable negligence depriving a party of due process, do not justify reopening a final judgment. The petition was therefore dismissed.