G.R. No.

147995

March 4, 2004

JESSIE MACALALAG, petitioner, vs.OMBUDSMAN, PABLO ALORO a ! COUR" O# APPEALS, respondents. #AC"S$ On February 3, 1997, private respondent (a resident of Bacolod City, is a retired employee receiving a monthly pension from the ocial ecurity ystem ! lodged "ith the #ffice of the #mbudsman for $isayas a complaint for dishonesty against the petitioner %essie &acalalag, an employee of the 'hilippine 'ostal Corporation, Bacolod City. (he petitioner "as directed to file his ans"er through #rders dated February 1), %uly 7, and *ovember 13, 1997 and +pril ,-, 199) but he did not bother to file any. .nstead, "hen the case "as called for preliminary conference on ,7 #ctober 199), he sent a telegram re/uesting for postponement and praying that he be allo"ed to submit his position paper after "hich the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution. +gain, no position paper "as ever submitted by him. +ccordingly, the investigator "as constrained to resolve the case on the basis solely of the evidence furnished by the private respondent. +s of eptember 10, 1991, ho"ever, he failed to receive his pension chec2s corresponding to the months of +pril, &ay and %uly, 1991. 3hen he "ent to Bacolod City 'ost #ffice to verify about the matter, he learned that his missing chec2s "ere ta2en by the petitioner, an employee of the 'hilippine 'ostal Corporation in Bacolod City, "ho endorsed and encashed them for his personal benefit. 3hen confronted by the private respondent, the petitioner issued to the former his personal chec2 in the amount of '7,3,4.44 in payment of the chec2s. 5o"ever, "hen the private complainant presented the chec2 for payment, it "as dishonored by the dra"ee ban2 for having been dra"n against insufficient funds.(he private6respondent e7ecuted an affidavit of desistance for the purpose of see2ing the dismissal of the case against the petitioner and this "as re8ected and, instead, the petitioner "as declared administratively liable and ordered dismissed from the service "ith forfeiture of all benefits and dis/ualification from government service. (he petitioner sought a consideration but the same "as denied.(he petitioner ne7t appealed to the upreme Court by "ay of a petition for revie" on certiorari. 5o"ever, in the light of the decision in Fabian vs. 9esierto, the appeal "as dismissed.'etitioner filed an action for annulment of 8udgment "ith the C+ on the ground that :the gross ignorance, negligence and incompetence of petitioner;s former la"yer deprived petitioner of his day in court "hich ("ould! 8ustify the annulment of the assailed <esolution and #rder.: (he appellate court, ho"ever, dismissed the petition for lac2 of 8urisdiction ISSUE$ "hether or not the Court of +ppeals has 8urisdiction over actions for annulment of decisions or orders of the #mbudsman in administrative cases. %ELD$ P&'('(o )a* !(*+(**&!. CA,* !&c(*(o )a* a--(r+&! <ule -7, entitled :+nnulment of %udgments or Final #rders and <esolutions,: is a ne" provision under the 1997 <ules of Civil 'rocedure albeit the remedy has long been given imprimatur by the courts. 3 (he rule covers :annulment by the Court of

+ppeals of 8udgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for "hich the ordinary remedies of ne" trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies could no longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner.:- +n action for annulment of 8udgment is a remedy in la" independent of the case "here the 8udgment sought to be annulled is rendered. 0 (he concern that the remedy could so easily be resorted to as an instrument to delay a final and e7ecutory 8udgment,1 has prompted safeguards to be put in place in order to avoid an abuse of the rule. (hus, the annulment of 8udgment may be based only on the grounds of e7trinsic fraud and lac2 of 8urisdiction, 7 and the remedy may not be invo2ed (1! "here the party has availed himself of the remedy of ne" trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost therefrom, or (,! "here he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his o"n fault or negligence.

ection ,7 of <epublic +ct *o. (<.+.! 1774, also 2no"n as (he #mbudsman +ct of 19)9, provides that orders, directives and decisions of the #mbudsman in administrative cases are appealable to the upreme Court via <ule -0 of the <ules of Court. .n Fabian v. Desierto), the Court has declared ection ,7 of the +ct to be unconstitutional since it e7pands the upreme Court;s 8urisdiction "ithout its advice and consent re/uired under +rticle $., ection 34, of the 19)7 Constitution. 5ence, all appeals from decisions of the #mbudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are instead to be ta2en to the Court of +ppeals under <ule -3 of the 1997 <ules of Civil 'rocedure. (he rule is reiterated in +dministrative Circular *o. 996,6416 C.'arenthetically, <.+. 1774 is silent on the remedy of annulment of 8udgments or final orders and resolutions of the #mbudsman in administrative cases. .n Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario,9 the Court has held that since (he #mbudsman +ct specifically deals "ith the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the #mbudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, the right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the #mbudsman in criminal or non6administrative cases. (he right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be e7ercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance "ith, the provisions of la".14 (here must then be a la" e7pressly granting such right.11 (his legal a7iom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of 8udgments "hich is an e7ception to the rule on finality of 8udgments. &oreover, petitioner may no longer resort to the remedy of annulment of 8udgment after having filed an appeal "ith the upreme Court. *either can he claim that he is not bound by his la"yer;s actions= it is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel "hen the courts can step in and accord relief to a client "ho "ould have suffered thereby.1, .f every perceived mista2e, failure of diligence, lac2 of e7perience or insufficient legal 2no"ledge of the la"yer "ould be admitted as a reason for the reopening of a case, there "ould be no end to controversy. Fundamental to our 8udicial system is the principle that every litigation must come to an end. .t "ould be a clear moc2ery if it "ere other"ise. +ccess to the courts is guaranteed, but there must be a limit to it.