Basmayor v. Atencio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Grace A. Basmayor, a computer operator at TESDA Regional Office No. XI, was informed via memorandum dated September 19, 2000, that she had accumulated thirty-one and a half days of absence without official leave (AWOL) in violation of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 41 s. 1998. She was warned that failure to explain her absences would result in her implied resignation and being dropped from the rolls. Subsequently, Basmayor received memoranda dated October 18, 2000, and November 3, 2000, informing her that her service was terminated effective October 3, 2000, and she was dropped from the rolls. Procedural History: On November 13, 2000, Basmayor filed a complaint with the CSC Regional Office No. XI (CSCRO-XI) against respondent Loida B. Atencio, Administrative Officer V, for falsification of official document, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, and dishonesty. Basmayor alleged that Atencio forged the signature of TESDA Regional Director Juanito C. Cueva on the November 3, 2000 memorandum, making it appear that Cueva issued it while he was in Australia. Atencio denied this, stating Cueva instructed her to issue the memorandum via facsimile. Basmayor's complaint was dismissed twice by CSCRO-XI for failure to include a certification of non-forum shopping. After an appeal, the CSC Chairman granted, and CSCRO-XI conducted an investigation, ultimately dismissing the complaint for lack of prima facie case on July 10, 2001. Basmayor filed a separate petition for reinstatement, which was dismissed by CSCRO-XI on August 2, 2001, for lack of primary jurisdiction, stating the grievance committee of TESDA was the proper forum. Basmayor appealed both dismissals to the CSC Central Office. In Resolution No. 020125 dated January 24, 2002, the CSC Central Office remanded the case to CSCRO-XI, holding that CSCRO-XI should take cognizance of the reinstatement petition as it was related to the administrative complaint. Basmayor moved for reconsideration, requesting the CSC to resolve her administrative complaint against Atencio instead. On December 11, 2002, the CSC Central Office issued Resolution No. 021559, denying the motion for reconsideration, affirming the CSCRO-XI order, and dismissing for reinstatement. The Petition: Basmayor filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing CSC Resolution No. 021559. The CA dismissed outright for procedural defects: the resolution was a mere photocopy, and lacked a concise statement of facts and issues. The CA also noted that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) should have been impleaded as a respondent. Basmayor's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Civil Service Commission should have been impleaded as a respondent in the petition for review before the Court of Appeals. Whether the issues raised by the petitioner are proper for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Whether the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in dismissing the petition for review on procedural grounds. Whether the certification issued by Director Cueva is inadmissible evidence. Whether Director Cueva was effectively absent such that the memorandum issued during his absence was without effect.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit, affirming the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to raise issues concerning reversible errors committed by the Court of Appeals, instead focusing on issues that were not the basis for the CA's dismissal. The Court also noted that the issues raised were factual or mixed questions of fact and law, which are not cognizable in a Rule 45 petition. However, the Court agreed with the petitioner that the Civil Service Commission need not be impleaded as a respondent pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the impleading of the Civil Service Commission: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner that, in accordance with Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the lower court or agency that rendered the assailed decision need not be impleaded as a respondent. This procedural point, while correct, did not salvage the petition from its substantive lack of merit regarding reversible errors committed by the Court of Appeals. On the propriety of the petition and the nature of the issues raised: The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to correcting reversible errors committed by the lower appellate court. The petitioner failed to distinctly set forth any such errors committed by the Court of Appeals, which had dismissed her petition on procedural grounds. Instead, Basmayor raised issues that were not addressed by the CA's dismissal order, such as the admissibility of evidence and the effective absence of Director Cueva. The Court clarified that the issues presented by the petitioner, particularly concerning whether Director Cueva was effectively absent and the probative value of his certification, are factual or mixed questions of fact and law. Such issues are generally not subject to review by the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition, which is confined to questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not re-weigh evidence. The Court found these deficiencies sufficient grounds to deny the petition outright. On the Court of Appeals' dismissal and related issues: The Supreme Court found these deficiencies sufficient grounds to deny the petition outright. On the admissibility and probative value of Director Cueva's certification: The petitioner argued that Director Cueva's certification was incompetent evidence, citing People v. Caragao. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Civil Service Commission had already dismissed the charges of falsification against Atencio for lack of prima facie evidence. The CSCRO No. XI found that the director's signature was not forged and that Atencio issued the memorandum upon the director's instructions. These findings, supported by the records and affirmed by Director Cueva himself, were accorded respect and finality by the Supreme Court, which found no cause to disturb them. On the dismissal of charges, petitioner's dismissal from service, and the effect of Director Cueva's absence: The Court reiterated that the administrative bodies found no prima facie case against Atencio. Furthermore, the records indicated that Basmayor violated civil service rules on allowable absences and was properly informed of her offense and dismissal. These findings by the administrative bodies, supported by evidence, were deemed conclusive.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing reversible errors committed by the appellate court. If the appellate court dismissed the petition on technical grounds, the Supreme Court will only review those grounds. Factual issues and the determination of the probative value of evidence are generally not within the scope of a Rule 45 petition.