GR 167234; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167234 ; February 27, 2006
TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, Petitioner, vs. RAFAEL B. BUENAVENTURA and NORBERTO C. NAZARENO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Teodoro C. Borlongan, then president of Urban Bank Inc. (UBI), filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents Rafael B. Buenaventura, Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and Norberto C. Nazareno, President of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). He alleged that after the Monetary Board ordered UBI’s closure and appointed PDIC as receiver on April 26, 2000, respondents gave undue preference to Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) by allowing it to collect on assigned National Food Authority promissory notes worth ₱562.5 million, in violation of the New Central Bank Act. The Ombudsman initially found Nazareno guilty of simple misconduct but later dismissed the administrative complaint against him, adopting its prior finding in a related criminal case that there was no probable cause. Buenaventura was earlier absolved.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for certiorari, thereby upholding the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of grave abuse of discretion.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The core legal issue pertained to the perfection of the appeal. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must comply with procedural rules. Perfection of an appeal via a petition for review under Rule 45 requires payment of docket fees and timely filing of the petition within the reglementary period. Here, the petitioner died on April 11, 2005, before his counsel filed the petition on April 18, 2005. Upon a party’s death before filing a notice of appeal, the appeal is not perfected, and the pending action does not survive unless it involves a property right that transmits to the heirs. The administrative case for misconduct, seeking the respondents’ suspension, is purely personal and is extinguished by the petitioner’s death. Consequently, the appeal was not perfected, rendering the Ombudsman’s dismissal final. The Court thus found no reversible error in the appellate court’s ruling.