GR 193706; (March, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193706 ; March 12, 2013
EBRENCIO F. INDOYON, JR., Municipal Treasurer, Lingig, Surigao del Sur, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Twenty-Second Division, Cagayan de Oro City, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ebrencio F. Indoyon, Jr., the Municipal Treasurer of Lingig, Surigao del Sur, was found by the Commission on Audit (COA) to have incurred a cash shortage of ₱1,222,648.42. He admitted to using a portion of the funds for a personal project and allowing others to use collections as cash advances. Two separate administrative cases ensued. The Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF-DOF) found him guilty of simple neglect of duty, initially imposing a six-month suspension, later modified to a fine equivalent to six months’ salary. Concurrently, the Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service.
Indoyon sought to enjoin the Ombudsman’s decision by filing a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed this petition due to multiple technical infirmities and violations of court circulars. His motion for reconsideration, which invoked substantial justice, was likewise denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 43 Petition for Review on the ground of noncompliance with procedural rules.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential to the orderly administration of justice. The CA’s dismissal was justified due to petitioner’s failure to comply with the Rules of Court and relevant Supreme Court circulars in his filing.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that petitioner compounded his error by availing of the wrong remedy before the High Court. The proper mode to appeal the CA’s resolutions was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, filed within fifteen days. Instead, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken by a wrong or inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. The Court cannot countenance a litigant’s disregard for procedural rules and his attempt to delegate to the Court the task of determining the proper remedy. The petition was therefore dismissed for being procedurally infirm and devoid of merit.