04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Undeterred, petitioner is now before the Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' Resolution dated 18 October 2005. This case was docketed as G.R. No. 173152. On 7 March 2007, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 173152, G.R. No. 167335 and G.R. No. 167337 since these cases involve similar parties and issues. [15] G.R. No. 173152 Petitioner avers that the decision of the Ombudsman finding private respondents administratively guilty and imposing upon them the penalty of reprimand is final and unappealable. Inasmuch as the penalty of reprimand is final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman and Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," then the only legal recourse available to him is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioner, likewise, insists that the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon committed grave abuse of discretion when he concluded that the complained acts of private respondents did not constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the public service. In the Comment filed by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, through the Office of the Solicitor General, it was contended that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the special civil action filed by petitioner since decisions, orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are to be appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. It was, likewise, asserted that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedures of the Office of the Ombudsman, cannot be invoked by petitioner as said provisions were declared unconstitutional in Fabian v. Desierto.[16] Petitioner is correct in arguing that the decision of the Ombudsman imposing on private respondents the penalty of reprimand is final and unappealable. Ironically, though, this is the same argument that struck the death knell to his posturings. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 partly states: Sec. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. — All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory. xxxx Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary shall be final and unappealable. In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44053 5/11