GR 205572; (October, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205572 , October 07, 2020
Patrick U. Gabutina, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent.
FACTS
Patrick U. Gabutina, Chief of Staff to a congressman, was administratively charged before the Office of the Ombudsman based on the complaint of John Kenneth Moreno. Moreno alleged that Gabutina and an associate demanded and received PHP 650,000 as an advance “SOP” (standard operating procedure) to facilitate the award of a government infrastructure project to him. Despite receiving the money and providing assurances, the project was awarded to a different contractor, and the money was not returned.
The Ombudsman found Gabutina guilty of Grave Misconduct and violating anti-graft laws in a Decision dated October 29, 2004, imposing the penalty of dismissal. Gabutina filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied in Orders dated February 18, 2005 and September 8, 2011. He received the 2005 denial on March 17, 2005. However, Gabutina only filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 21, 2011—more than six years after the reglementary period to appeal had lapsed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Gabutina’s Petition for Review due to procedural infirmities, particularly his failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period.
RULING
Yes, the CA correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised in strict compliance with procedural rules. Under the applicable rules, specifically Administrative Order No. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman, a party has only fifteen (15) days from receipt of an adverse order to file an appeal via a Petition for Review with the CA.
Gabutina received the Ombudsman’s February 18, 2005 Order denying his motion on March 17, 2005. His period to appeal thus expired on April 1, 2005. His filing on December 21, 2011 constituted an inexcusable delay of over six years. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential to the orderly administration of justice and the prevention of needless delays. Gabutina offered no compelling justification for this extreme delay. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s 2004 Decision and subsequent orders had long attained finality and executory status. The Supreme Court denied Gabutina’s Petition for Review on Certiorari, rendering the Ombudsman’s finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal final and executory.