G.R. No. 154678; July 17, 2007
Corazon C. Balbastro vs. Nestor Junio, et al.

FACTS

Respondents, ten former students, filed administrative and criminal complaints against petitioner Corazon C. Balbastro, the school principal, and other school officials for falsification of public documents and malversation. They alleged that payrolls were prepared making it appear they worked on school projects and received daily wages, which was false. Petitioner denied the charges, asserting she merely signed payrolls prepared by the accounting department in good faith to fund the school’s participation in a festival, with no personal benefit. During the Ombudsman hearing, petitioner and two co-respondents walked out, leading the Ombudsman to deem they waived their right to present evidence. The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of dishonesty and ordered her dismissal.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of appealing the Ombudsman’s decision via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within the 15-day reglementary period, she filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals 52 days after receiving the denial. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling certiorari cannot substitute for a lapsed appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was an improper remedy, as the correct remedy from the Ombudsman’s decision in an administrative case is a petition for review under Rule 43.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The established rule, following the landmark case of Fabian v. Desierto, is that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedy of appeal by petition for review was available to petitioner, but she failed to avail of it within the 15-day period. Certiorari is only proper when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since the remedy of appeal was available but lapsed due to petitioner’s inaction, the special civil action for certiorari was an erroneous procedural recourse. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory, and failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory. Petitioner’s allegations of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman do not justify a disregard of this procedural rule, as certiorari cannot be used to revive a lost appeal.