December 4, 1997
Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
FACTS
Atty. Alfredo Paa was the Administrative Officer of Regional Office No. XI of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). In 1992, then DOLE Secretary Ma. Nieves Confesor ordered Atty. Paa DISMISSED from the service for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, frequent absences from duty during office hours, and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. His MR before the DOLE secretary's office was denied.
Atty. Paa appealed before the CSC, which ultimately found him guilty of being "notoriously undesirable." The CSC affirmed the DOLE secretary's order of his dismissal. MR denied.
Subsequently, Atty. Paa filed before the CA a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 45. He averred that he received a copy of the February 13, 1996 CSC resolution on March 29, 1996 and he had then until April 13, 1996 within which to file a petition for review under Rule 45. The problem was, he needed three (3) weeks to secure certified true copies of the resolutions and other pertinent documents from the CSC, which were to be attached to the petition. He thus asked for an extension of 30 days from April 13, 1996 within which to file the petition.
CA: Motion denied for being the wrong mode of appeal. MR was also denied.
Following the denial of his motion, Atty. Paa filed another petition before the CA, this time a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CSC in ordering his dismissal. Later, he filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or Rule 45 with the SC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in denying his motion for extension of time.
RULING
Petition denied. CA affirmed.
What is the proper mode of appeal from judgments or final orders or resolutions of quasi-judicial agencies? – PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 43 OR SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65.
CA correctly dismissed Atty. Paa's motion because as per Circular No. 2-90 issued by the SC, appeals taken to either the SC or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal shall be dismissed. In the present case, appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of quasi-judicial agencies may either be a petition for review under Rule 43 or a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
Petition for review under Rule 43
Section 9(3) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7902, vests the CA with "exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of x x x quasi-judicial agencies x x x including the x x x Civil Service Commission."
Under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, appeals filed with the CA from judgments of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the CSC, should be by verified petition for review. • Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July 1, 1997, a petition for review as a mode of appeal to the CA from decisions, final orders or resolutions of quasi-judicial bodies, including the CSC, is governed by Rule 43 thereof.
Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
In certiorari as an original action, the petition raises the issue as to whether the lower court (including administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions) acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The original jurisdiction of the CA over special civil actions for certiorari is vested upon it in Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129. This jurisdiction is concurrent with the SC and the RTC.
Under Rule 65, the petitioner has a "reasonable period" from receipt of a copy of the assailed order/judgment/resolution within which to file the petition. In a number of cases, the SC has interpreted "reasonable period" to be ninety (90) days.
Whether Atty. Paa's subsequent filing of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 following the denial of his motion for extension of time under Rule 45 can be countenanced. – NO.
A special civil action for certiorari will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. It is clear that the proffered justification for Atty. Paa's belated filing of a special action for certiorari was nothing but a crude attempt to circumvent standing rules of procedure, which cannot be tolerated.
But even if one were to assume that Atty. Paa's filing of a special civil of action for certiorari was proper, the end result would remain unchanged since a perusal of the challenged resolutions of the CSC fails to disclose any grave abuse of discretion on its part.
