04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly ordering their suspension for one (1) month without pay is final and unappealable as provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Administrative Order No. 07, Section 7, Rule III of the Office of the Ombudsman implementing Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770. x x x. xxxx x x x In the instant case, since the penalty imposed upon respondents was "one month suspension without pay" only, as a matter of law, the decision of the Ombudsman is final and unappealable. x x x. xxxx Since the decision of the Ombudsman suspending respondents for one (1) month is final and unappealable, it follows that the CA had no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse the same. x x x. In the instant case, since private respondents, through the Joint Order issued by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, were sanctioned to suffer the penalty of reprimand, such order cannot be elevated to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 since said order is final and unappealable. This must not be taken to mean that a party, aggrieved by any decision or order of the Office of the Ombudsman rendered in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, has no legal recourse. In such a case, the same party may file a Petition for Certiorari with this Court. Thus, this Court once held: This is not to say that decisions of the Ombudsman cannot be questioned. Decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies which are declared by law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. When such administrative or quasijudicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings. Thus, the decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.[19] From the foregoing disquisition, it is quite evident that petitioner employed the wrong remedy. Instead of filing his special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, petitioner should have filed the same directly with this Court. On this score alone, this petition warrants an outright dismissal. Even if this Court treats the petition filed with the Court of Appeals as one for certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner, nonetheless, failed to adduce evidence that the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in his joint order. In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the inquiry is limited essentially to whether or not the public respondent acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. A tribunal, board or officer acts without jurisdiction if it/he does not have the legal elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44053 7/11