Commission on Higher Education v. Mercado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint was filed against respondent Rosa F. Mercado, a Senior Education Specialist of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), for arrogance, abuse of power, ignorance of regulations, and incompetence. The complaint stemmed from the evaluation of Republican College's application for recognition of its Master in Criminology Program. Respondent Mercado allegedly acted with arrogance and maligned the complainant, Dean Ma. Luisa F. Dimayuga. Procedural History: The CHED initially found respondent Mercado guilty of discourtesy and reprimanded her. Respondent Mercado moved for reconsideration, attaching an alleged resolution from former CHED Chairman Angel C. Alcala and an affidavit of desistance from Dimayuga. The CHED deferred action upon discovering discrepancies in the signature on the affidavit and the absence of the Alcala Resolution in its records. Subsequently, the CHED en banc passed Resolution No. R-439-99, placing respondent Mercado under preventive suspension for 60 days without pay and creating a hearing committee. Respondent Mercado failed to appear at hearings despite subpoenas. Dimayuga testified that she never signed an affidavit of desistance. The CHED en banc denied Mercado's motion for reconsideration and found her guilty of falsification, dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, meting out the penalty of dismissal from the service. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially denied Mercado's appeal but later granted her motion for reconsideration, ordering her reinstatement with backwages. The Petition: The CHED filed a Manifestation with Motion for Clarification with the CSC regarding the finality of the CSC Resolution and its ability to file another motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, respondent Mercado filed a motion for writ of execution. The CHED then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the CSC Resolution. The CA dismissed the CHED's petition on the ground of prematurity. The CHED moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied. The CHED filed the instant petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that its appeal to the CA was not prematurely filed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the CHED's petition for review on the ground of prematurity. Whether the CHED's Manifestation with Motion for Clarification tolled the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, reinstated the CHED's petition for review, and directed the Court of Appeals to decide the petition on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the CHED's petition for review on the ground of prematurity: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of prematurity. The CHED's Manifestation with Motion for Clarification did not partake of the nature of a motion for reconsideration. It merely inquired into the ramifications of the CSC Resolution, specifically whether it was final and executory and whether reinstatement was possible. The manifestation did not assail or seek the reversal of the CSC Resolution. Therefore, it did not toll the reglementary period for appeal. On whether the CHED's Manifestation with Motion for Clarification tolled the reglementary period for filing a petition for review: The Court clarified that a motion for clarification is not a motion for reconsideration and does not interrupt the reglementary period for appeal. The filing of the CHED's Manifestation with Motion for Clarification was merely an unadulterated query. The CSC, in Resolution No. 030054, acknowledged that the CHED could still file a motion for reconsideration, indicating it did not treat the manifestation as such. Consequently, the appeal filed by the CHED with the Court of Appeals was not premature. The filing of the petition for review within the extended period granted by the appellate court prevented the resolution from becoming final and executory. The Court reiterated that under Rule 43, Section 4, a motion for reconsideration is not always a prerequisite to filing a petition for review, and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the CSC allow elevation to the Court of Appeals via petition for review without a prior motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
A motion for clarification does not toll the reglementary period for filing a petition for review, as it does not partake of the nature of a motion for reconsideration. The filing of a petition for review within the reglementary period, even without a prior motion for reconsideration, prevents a resolution from becoming final and executory.