Mahinay v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rodolfo R. Mahinay, a police officer with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), was charged with receiving unofficial fees from FRITZ Logistics Phils. Inc. between 1996 and February 19, 1998. The fees were allegedly paid in exchange for escort services provided to FRITZ' trucks, intended to expedite their passage through checkpoints and avoid delays, particularly during the implementation of the truck ban policy in Metro Manila. This conduct was alleged to be in violation of Section 46 (b) (9) of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Section 22 (i), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Procedural History: The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) found Mahinay guilty and ordered his forced resignation. Upon Mahinay's motion for reconsideration, PEZA denied it. Mahinay appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which upheld PEZA's decision but modified the penalty to dismissal from the service. The CSC denied Mahinay's motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, Mahinay filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied this motion, deeming it the wrong mode of appeal and filed out of time. Mahinay then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which the CA also dismissed. The CA later denied Mahinay's motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner Rodolfo R. Mahinay seeks certiorari against the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. He contends that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari on the grounds that it was the wrong mode of appeal and filed out of time. Mahinay argues that while a petition for review under Rule 43 was available, it was not an adequate remedy due to his dismissal from service prior to his appeal to the CSC. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition without merit, reiterating that certiorari is not a substitute for appeal when an adequate remedy exists, and that Mahinay's petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for an appeal under Rule 43.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy when a petition for review under Rule 43 is available but was not filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal from the service carries with it disqualification for reemployment in the government service and forfeiture of retirement benefits, except leave credits. Petitioner is entitled to the monetary equivalent of his accrued leave credits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA correctly denied petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari, which effectively dismissed his petition. The CA's reasoning was that the proper mode of appeal from a decision of a quasi-judicial agency like the CSC is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The CA also correctly found that the petition was filed out of time. On Issue 2: The Court reiterated the principle that a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may only be resorted to when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its/his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, AND there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, petitioner clearly had the remedy of appeal provided by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation to emphasize that where appeal is available, certiorari will not be entertained, as these remedies are mutually exclusive. The Court noted that while there are exceptions where certiorari may be allowed despite the availability of appeal, the circumstances in this case did not warrant such an exception. Furthermore, the Court found that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing an appeal under Rule 43, which is 15 days from notice of the resolution. Petitioner received the CSC Resolution on August 11, 2000, making his deadline August 26, 2000, but he filed his motion for extension on September 12, 2000, and the petition itself on November 9, 2000.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy that can only be resorted to when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss is attributable to the petitioner's own negligence or error in choosing the wrong mode of appeal or in failing to file within the reglementary period. The Court emphasized that remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive.