GR 156047; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156047 . April 12, 2005
ENGR. PEDRO C. RUBIO, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON. EMMANUEL M. PARAS, Administrator, National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Respondents.
FACTS
Engr. Pedro Rubio, Jr., a Provincial Irrigation Officer, was administratively charged by the NIA Administrator with Grave Misconduct, Oppression, and Violation of Civil Service Rules, and was preventively suspended. Rubio filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to nullify the formal charge and suspension. He argued that several charges were not included in the initial complaint, depriving him of due process, and that some matters were already within the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit or the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The RTC dismissed the petition, ruling that while there was a due process violation, the proper remedy was to file a motion for reconsideration with the NIA Administrator or appeal to the CSC.
Instead of appealing the RTC’s order under Rule 41, Rubio filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed this petition, holding that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy since the RTC’s order was a final judgment appealable via a regular appeal under Rule 41. Rubio’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy from the RTC’s final order was an appeal under Rule 41, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing Rubio’s petition for certiorari. The established rule is that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy, available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. In this case, the RTC’s order dismissing Rubio’s petition was a final order that disposed of the case. The proper and available remedy from such a final order of the RTC was indeed a regular appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Since Rubio failed to avail of this plain and adequate remedy within the reglementary period, he cannot resort to a petition for certiorari. The CA was therefore correct in its initial procedural finding. However, in the interest of justice and to resolve the substantive due process issue definitively, the Supreme Court proceeded to rule on the merits. It found that the NIA Administrator violated Rubio’s right to due process by including new charges in the formal charge that were not specified in the preliminary investigation, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to prepare his defense. Consequently, the formal charge and the preventive suspension order were declared null and void.