G.R. No. 175977 ; August 19, 2013
Hadji Pangsayan T. Abdulrahman, Petitioner, vs. The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao and Guiamaludin A. Sendad, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hadji Pangsayan T. Abdulrahman was a Land Management Inspector of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat. Private respondent Guiamaludin A. Sendad, in a letter dated August 29, 1990, complained to the National Bureau of Investigation alleging that petitioner solicited from him the amount of ₱5,450 as consideration for titling lands in South Upi, Maguindanao in his name. The complaint was forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. Instead of filing a counter-affidavit, petitioner submitted a Manifestation dated August 11, 1992 attaching an Affidavit of Desistance from private respondent, who stated he had forgiven petitioner after the money was returned and missing documents were produced. The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated March 14, 1995, found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and recommended his dismissal from service, directing the DENR Region XII Regional Executive Director (RED) to implement the dismissal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 19, 1999. His subsequent “Motion for New Trial or Second Motion for Reconsideration” was denied on August 23, 1999. Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 55737), which was dismissed for lack of merit in a Decision dated June 28, 2001 that became final on September 4, 2001. On March 31, 2004, the Ombudsman issued an Order of Implementation directing the DENR XII RED to implement petitioner’s dismissal. Petitioner received this order on August 13, 2004 and, on August 16, 2004, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 85727) alleging the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated July 21, 2005 for procedural errors: (1) failure to implead private respondent, and (2) failure to attach relevant pleadings and documents. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 14, 2006, which added that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration of the Order of Implementation and consequently failed to state material dates in his petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Rules of Court should be given liberal construction, especially when substantial issues are raised.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals misapprehended facts in concluding that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Resolutions.
1. On Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules: The Court acknowledged that procedural rules may be liberally construed to serve substantial justice, especially in meritorious cases. However, such liberality is not a right and depends on the circumstances. In this case, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to petitioner’s failure to comply with procedural requirements under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, specifically: (a) failure to implead the private respondent as an indispensable party; (b) failure to attach relevant pleadings and documents; (c) failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s Order of Implementation (thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies); and (d) consequent failure to state the material dates in the petition. The Court found no compelling reason to relax these rules.
2. On Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and the Ombudsman’s Power: The Court held that the CA did not misapprehend facts. Petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order of Implementation before resorting to certiorari rendered his petition dismissible. Furthermore, the Court clarified the nature of the Ombudsman’s power. Citing Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that under Section 13(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 15(3) of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman has the power to “direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action” and “ensure compliance therewith.” This includes the authority to issue orders of implementation to compel compliance with its disciplinary directives. The Order of Implementation was a legitimate exercise of this power to execute the Ombudsman’s final and executory Resolution recommending dismissal. Therefore, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.