Paa v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Atty. Alfonso Paa was dismissed from service as Administrative Officer of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office XI by the DOLE Secretary for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, frequent absences, and violation of office rules. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed the dismissal, finding him "Notoriously Undesirable." Procedural History: Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court." He alleged needing time to secure certified true copies of resolutions and documents. The CA denied this motion, stating that a petition for review under Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 was the correct mode of appeal from CSC resolutions, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. The Petition: Petitioner then filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's denial of his motion for extension, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA for strictly adhering to the mode of appeal and ignoring the CA's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari under R.A. No. 7902. He argued that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was appropriate given the alleged "ultra vires acts" and "grave abuse of discretion" by the CSC in considering documents not presented during the formal hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy when a petition for review under Rule 45 (or Rule 43 under the 1997 Rules) is the prescribed mode of appeal from decisions of the Civil Service Commission. Whether a special civil action for certiorari can be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal; and whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 45.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' denial of the motion for extension: The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. The CA correctly pointed out that the proper mode of appeal from decisions of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to the Court of Appeals is a Petition for Review, as mandated by Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. The petitioner's explicit mention of filing a petition for review under Rule 45 in his motion for extension indicated his intention to pursue an appeal, not an original action for certiorari. On the availability of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65: The Court clarified the distinction between a petition for review as a mode of appeal and a special civil action for certiorari. While the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, this jurisdiction is distinct from its appellate jurisdiction. If the petitioner believed a special civil action for certiorari was the more appropriate and effective remedy, he could have filed it within the reglementary period without seeking an extension for an appeal. On the use of certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal and the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Civil Service Commission: The Court reiterated the settled rule that a special civil action for certiorari will not lie as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. The petitioner's attempt to file a special civil action for certiorari on May 10, 1996, after his motion for extension to file a petition for review was denied, was deemed a "crude attempt to circumvent standing rules of procedure." The Court found no special or compelling reasons to make an exception in this case. The petitioner's failure to file the proper appeal within the reglementary period meant he lost his right to judicial review through that avenue. Even if the Court were to entertain the petition under Rule 65, a perusal of the CSC's resolutions failed to disclose any grave abuse of discretion on its part. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims that the CSC considered documents not presented during the formal hearing, as this was not sufficiently demonstrated to warrant interference with the administrative findings.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal by way of a petition for review, especially when the petitioner's intent to file the latter was evident.