Civil Service Commission v. Asensi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Nimfa Asensi, a Revenue District Officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, was ordered dismissed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) due to alleged falsification of entries in her Personal Data Sheet concerning her educational background. Specifically, she was accused of misrepresenting her college degree and the year of its conferment. Procedural History: Respondent Asensi challenged the CSC's dismissal order via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on July 9, 2003, set aside the CSC's resolution, finding that Asensi was guilty only of carelessness in misstating her educational attainment, not falsification. The CSC's motion for reconsideration was denied on October 29, 2003. The Petition: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counsel for the CSC, received the Court of Appeals' resolution on November 7, 2003, and filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari. However, the CSC, apparently without the OSG's knowledge or consent, filed its own Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on November 27, 2003, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the respondent, dismissed the CSC's petition, holding that certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy and that the correct remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45, the period for which had already lapsed.
Issue(s)
Whether the CSC correctly availed itself of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the Court of Appeals' decision. Whether the CSC, through its Office of Legal Affairs, can represent itself before the Supreme Court independently of the Office of the Solicitor General.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It held that the CSC resorted to the wrong mode of appeal. The Court also noted that even if the CSC's Office of Legal Affairs were allowed to represent the CSC, the dismissal would still be warranted due to the erroneous mode of review and the lapse of the period for filing the proper petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Issue 1): The Supreme Court agreed with the respondent that the CSC committed an error in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court reiterated the elementary principle that a special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The alleged error of the Court of Appeals in finding the respondent not guilty of the charges, if true, would constitute an error of law, not an error of jurisdiction. Certiorari is not a remedy for errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court, as long as the court acts within its jurisdiction. Such errors are reviewable by a timely appeal. Furthermore, certiorari is not warranted if there is another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the proper remedy to assail an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals was a petition for review under Rule 45. The CSC's resort to certiorari when a petition for review was available and the period for filing it had elapsed was an improper mode of appeal. On the representation of the CSC (Issue 2): The Court found the CSC's assertion of its Office of Legal Affairs' authority to represent the CSC before the Supreme Court to be of dubious legal basis. Citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory and Orbos v. Civil Service Commission, the Court emphasized that the Solicitor General has the primary responsibility to appear for the government and its instrumentalities in appellate proceedings. An appearance by a government office through its own legal personnel is generally allowed only if it is adversely affected by a contrary position taken by the OSG. In this case, there was no indication that the OSG had adopted a position contrary to that of the CSC. Therefore, the CSC's independent appearance through its own lawyers was not warranted. Even if it were allowed, the petition would still be dismissed on the ground of the erroneous mode of appeal.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a decision of the Court of Appeals when the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45, as certiorari lies only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. Resorting to certiorari when a petition for review is available and the period for filing it has lapsed constitutes an improper mode of appeal.