GR 213502; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213502 February 18, 2019
JERLINDA M. MIRANDA, Petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jerlinda M. Miranda, an Accountant III at the Western Visayas Medical Center, was administratively charged for her failure to submit required financial reports to the Commission on Audit for several years. The Department of Health found her guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed the penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties. The Civil Service Commission affirmed this decision. Miranda elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, which the CA dismissed. The CA ruled that a Petition for Review under Rule 43 was the proper remedy, not certiorari, and that even if treated as such, the CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing Miranda’s Petition for Certiorari.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court first addressed the procedural flaw, agreeing with the CA that Miranda availed of the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is only proper when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Decisions of the Civil Service Commission are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Since the CA nevertheless entertained the petition, the Supreme Court proceeded to review the substantive issues.
On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CSC. Miranda’s claim that then-CSC Chairman Francisco Duque III should have inhibited himself was untenable, as the CSC acts as a collegial body; its decisions are products of collective deliberation, not of one member alone. Regarding the finding of guilt, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative charges. Miranda’s failure to submit the financial reports for extended periods, despite directives, constituted gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the service. Her defenses of being new to the position and systemic changes were insufficient to excuse the prolonged delays. However, the Court modified the penalty. Considering the absence of corruption or willful intent, and following jurisprudence that gross neglect may be a lesser offense, the Court reduced the penalty from dismissal to a one-year suspension. Since Miranda had already been separated, the penalty was converted to a fine equivalent to one year’s salary deductible from her retirement benefits.