Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

FORMER FIFTEENTH DIVISION

JOSEPHINE I. CAINGAT, CA-G.R. SP No. 145285

Petitioner,

Members:

BARRIOS, CHAIRPERSON,
MARTIN, &
- versus -
ONG, JJ.

THE OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN REPRESENTED BY
HON. CONCHITA CARPIO Promulgated:
MORALES, MARCELINO M. 21 JANUARY 2021
SIMBILLO, AND MELANIE P. _________________
MINA,
Respondents.

RESOLUTION

MARTIN, J.:

On 12 February 2020, this Court issued a Decision,1 the dispositive

portion of which, reads:

“WHEREFORE, the aforegoing considered, the present Petition

for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for being the wrong mode of
review. Accordingly, the assailed Consolidated Decision and
Consolidated Order issued by the Ombudsman are hereby AFFIRMED
and are already FINAL and EXECUTORY.

SO ORDERED.”2

1
Rollo, pp. 354-363.
2
Rollo, p. 363.
CA-G.R. SP No. 145285 Page 2 of 3
Resolution

On 05 August 2020, petitioner Josephine I. Caingat (petitioner) filed

her Motion for Reconsideration3 arguing that a petition for certiorari is the
proper remedy in questioning the Consolidated Decision and Consolidated
Resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Office of

the Ombudsman, filed a Motion for Extension to file its Comment for 30
days from 22 October 2020 until 21 November 2020.4

The OSG, representing the Office of the Ombudsman then filed its
Comment5 dated 21 November 2020 stating that the Court did not err in
ruling that the proper mode of review from a decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman is through a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court.

In Balayan v. Acorda,6 the Supreme Court ruled:

“It bears emphasis that the special civil action for certiorari is
a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. The Court
has often reminded members of the bench and bar that this extraordinary
action lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be allowed when a
party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of
that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lapsed or lost
appeal. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even
if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. x x x.

Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal

where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or
negligence.” (Emphasis supplied)

“The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of

due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in
the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.”7 Since petitioner
failed to file the correct mode of appeal before this Court, the instant motion
for reconsideration must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, this Court

RESOLVES to:
3
Id at pp. 364-374.
4
Id at p. 378.
5
Id at pp. 381-387.
6
G.R. No. 153537, 05 May 2006.
7
Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, 10 April 2013.
CA-G.R. SP No. 145285 Page 3 of 3
Resolution

1. NOTE the OSG's Motion for Extension to File

Comment of 30 days from 22 October to 21 November 2020
and the OSG's Comment dated 21 November 2020; and

2. DENY petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack

of merit.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

MANUEL M. BARRIOS WALTER S. ONG
Associate Justice Associate Justice