those of the Ombudsman Administrative Adjudication Bureau cannot, by itself, be considered grave abuse of discretion, as the findings of the disciplining authority is always subject to amendment, corrections or reconsideration. He concedes that the Overall Deputy Ombudsman found him to have committed misconduct amounting to sexual harassment. However, he points out that such finding of simple misconduct, instead of grave misconduct, is supported by facts and circumstances, and such finding is within sole discretion of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman over which the courts have no authority to interfere. At any rate, he submits that his misconduct was not motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose; hence, the extreme penalty of dismissal is not warranted. Finally, he maintains that the issue of sexual harassment is better addressed and resolved in the criminal case for violation of Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 787719 (docketed as Crim. Case No. 311165) pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Branch 64, for to do so in an administrative proceedings would be unfair, unjust and extremely unreasonable. On the second issue, petitioner contends that the CA grossly erred in applying the two prohibitions laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Court of Appeals,20 which was reiterated in Ma. Imelda Argel, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,21i.e., the doctrine that the 15-day period for filing an appeal is non-extendible, and the prohibition against the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration in all courts, except the Supreme Court. He insists that the denial of such motion for extension should be based on the court's assessment of the grounds relied upon and not on purely procedural technicality. He seeks to justify his urgent motion for extension on the fact that, as Presiding Judge and Pairing Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Olongapo City, he was beset with pressures of work attending to numerous court trials, preparation of court orders and decisions, and large volume of case load. He prays for a liberal construction of procedural rules in order to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. There is no merit in the petition The Court shall first delve on the procedural issue of the case. In Imperial v. Court of Appeals,22 the Court ruled: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry In a long line of cases starting with Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon, we have laid down the following guideline: Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. Thus, the general rule is that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is allowed. This rule is consistent with the rule in the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals that unless an appeal or a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed within the 15-day reglementary period, the CA’s decision becomes final. Thus, a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration does not stop the running of the 15-day period for the computation of a decision’s finality. At the