Case Digest: LOURDESITA M. BIBAS v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYA) and COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI

LOURDESITA M. BIBAS v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYA) and
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI

559 SCRA 591 (2008), EN BANC

Petitioner Lourdesita M. Bibas was Disbursing Officer II in the City Treasurer‘s Office, Silay City. She releases the salaries of government employees of Silay. Before each payday, she and her fellow disbursing officers would secure cash advances to defray the salaries, and after disbursement, they would present to their immediate supervisors the payrolls and remaining funds left in their possession. After the cash and accounts of the Bibas were examined, it was found that the cash on her account was short. Bibas explained that she misplaced two bundles of paid payrolls which she reported to their treasurer and their City Accountant Arsenal.

An action was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. The latter found Bibas liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Ombudsman subsequently modified its decision and found Bibas guilty of Dishonesty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds.

Bibas filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate court‘s Resolution but was denied for having been filed twenty-two (22) days late. Bibas‘ contention that the reglementary period should be counted from the day she personally obtained a copy of the Resolution when she visited her then counsel, and not the date when her counsel received copy thereof. The CA echoed the rule that notice to counsel is notice to the client.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Bibas‘ action

HELD:

There have thus been instances when lack of participatory negligence of a party and the seriousness of the penalty imposed on it persuaded the Court to relax procedural rules as well as the time-honored rule regarding the binding effect of counsel‘s negligence. Alongside these considerations, the question of whether a case is meritorious, at least on its face, carries much weight in determining whether a relaxation of the rules is warranted. Indeed, it would hardly make much sense to allow a late or improperly filed appeal and disregard the rule on the binding effect of counsel‘s negligence when it is evident that a party is, at all events, unable to present a convincing case on the merits. In such instances, allowing the appeal to run its course would be a mere waste of time, both for the parties and the appellate court.

Interestingly, Bibas admits that the merits of her case have been ventilated well enough both in the Petition itself and the Reply to the Comments of COA which she filed with this Court. If she fails then to present a strong case through the pleadings she has submitted to this Court, there would be no point remanding her case to the appellate court. As will be shown below, Bibas has failed to do just that. Neither then the procedural rules nor the rule on the binding effect of counsel‘s negligence should be relaxed.