G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997
DELIA R. NERVES, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, COURT OF APPEALS and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Delia R. Nerves, a teacher at Torres High School, was among twenty public school teachers administratively charged and dismissed by then DECS Secretary Isidro D. Carino for allegedly participating in a mass action/illegal strike on September 19-21, 1990, at Liwasang Bonifacio and for defying a Return-to-Work Order. The charges constituted grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil Service Law, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and absence without official leave (AWOL). Petitioner appealed the DECS Decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and later to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC set aside the dismissal and found her guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, meting a penalty of six months suspension. Considering the period she had been out of service, the penalty was deemed served, and she was automatically reinstated without back salaries. Nerves elevated the CSC Decision to the Court of Appeals via a petition filed on November 21, 1995, which she labeled as a “petition for certiorari filed pursuant to Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Philippines and under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,” but with a statement that per Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, she was filing it with the Court of Appeals instead of the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated November 27, 1995, summarily dismissed the petition for being the wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, citing Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 and stating that appeals from the CSC should be by petition for review under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Her motion for reconsideration was denied on January 22, 1996.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing outright the petition of November 21, 1995, for being an erroneous or inappropriate mode of appeal.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals was not correct. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and directed the reinstatement of the November 21, 1995 petition. The Court held that the petition filed by Nerves substantially complied with Revised Administrative Circular 1-95. Although erroneously labeled as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, this was only a minor procedural lapse, not fatal to the appeal. The petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period, was verified, included proof of service on the adverse party and the agency a quo, indicated the original copy for the Court of Appeals, paid the docketing fees and cost deposit, contained a concise statement of facts and issues, was accompanied by certified copies of the resolutions appealed from, stated material dates, and included a certification against forum shopping. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote their object and assist in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Litigations should be decided on merits, not on technicality, and dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon. The rigid application of rules should not frustrate substantial justice or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance.