GR 150792; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150792 ; March 3, 2004
HON. REMEDIOS L. PETILLA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and JERIEL L. ARDIENTE, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Jeriel L. Ardiente, a Nurse I, protested his reassignments from Hilongos District Hospital to other provincial offices. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) subsequently declared these reassignments void and ordered his reinstatement to his original station. During the pendency of his protest, Ardiente applied for leave and later failed to report to his new assigned station. Petitioner Governor Remedios Petilla, citing continuous unauthorized absences, issued a memorandum dropping Ardiente from the rolls of provincial employees. Ardiente did not appeal this dismissal order. Petitioner later challenged the CSC’s reinstatement order before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition for review for failure to attach certified true copies of material documents, as required by Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the appellate court denied it, ruling that the motion was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The court noted that the resolution was received at petitioner’s address by a certain Jaime Santos, and the period to move for reconsideration had lapsed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review and denying the motion for reconsideration.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions. On procedural grounds, the dismissal was proper. Section 6, Rule 43 mandates that a petition for review must be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the appealed judgment and material portions of the record. Petitioner’s failure to submit the required certified copies of the CSC resolution, her motion for reconsideration, and the letter-protest constituted a fatal procedural defect warranting dismissal under Section 7 of the same rule. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential for orderly judicial administration.
Regarding the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the Court upheld the finding that it was filed out of time. Service of the resolution at petitioner’s official or private address, received by a person of sufficient age and discretion, constitutes valid service. Petitioner’s claim of receiving it later through her staff did not toll the reglementary period. The Court also addressed the substantive issue, ruling that Ardiente’s dismissal was valid and separate from the void reassignment. The CSC’s order for reinstatement to his former workstation became moot and unenforceable because his separation from service, due to unauthorized absences under CSC rules, was a valid, distinct administrative action that was never appealed and had attained finality.