GR 154235; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154235-36 August 16, 2006
Alfredo O. Estrera (as Regional Director, Philippine Postal Corporation, Postal Region 10), Petitioner, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Leonardo Demecillo, and Venus Kavoori, Respondents.
FACTS
Venus Kavoori, a Postman II, was administratively charged by her superior, Regional Director Alfredo Estrera, for dishonesty and negligence following an investigation into alleged mail pilferage. Kavoori filed a petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, arguing the formal charge was invalid for not being sworn to as required by the Philippine Postal Corporation’s disciplinary rules. The RTC granted the petition, invalidated the proceedings, and enjoined the administrative hearing. Estrera did not move for reconsideration of this RTC Order.
Instead, Estrera filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67944. The CA dismissed this petition due to a procedural defect: the failure to attach the authority for Estrera to sign the verification for his co-petitioner. Estrera again did not file a motion for reconsideration. He instead filed a second, nearly identical petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69407. The CA dismissed this second petition and found Estrera and his counsel guilty of forum shopping, imposing a fine.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant Estrera’s petition for certiorari to set aside the CA Resolutions that dismissed his petitions and found him guilty of forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail the CA’s dismissal of his first petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 67944) for a procedural lapse. Certiorari is meant to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The CA’s dismissal for failure to comply with the rules on verification was an exercise of its judgment, not a jurisdictional error. Estrera’s proper recourse was to file a motion for reconsideration of that dismissal, which he did not do.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that certiorari is also not the correct remedy to challenge the CA’s finding of forum shopping and the imposition of a fine. This finding was a final order on a collateral issue, for which the proper remedy was an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Since Estrera failed to file such an appeal within the reglementary period, the remedy of certiorari was unavailable. The axiomatic rule is that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.