GR 160657; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160657, December 17, 2004
Civil Service Commission and Bureau of Internal Revenue, Petitioners, vs. Nimfa P. Asensi, Respondent.
FACTS
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed respondent Nimfa Asensi, a BIR Revenue District Officer, for falsifying her Personal Data Sheet. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as the government’s statutory counsel, filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court. However, before the extended deadline, the CSC, through its own Office of Legal Affairs, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the appellate court’s decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the CSC’s petition, citing two fatal defects: the use of an improper remedy and lack of legal capacity to file. The Court ruled that a petition for review under Rule 45 was the correct mode of appeal, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Furthermore, the Court held that the CSC’s Legal Office could not independently represent the Commission before the Supreme Court, as that authority resides exclusively with the OSG. The CSC filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the petition due to the CSC’s use of an improper remedy and its Legal Office’s lack of authority to file the petition independently.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal. On the procedural issue, the Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Since the CSC sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision on its merits, the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45. The OSG had correctly initiated this process by filing a motion for extension.
On the representation issue, the Court upheld the exclusive authority of the OSG to represent government agencies in appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, as mandated by the Administrative Code. The CSC’s reliance on a Memorandum of Agreement with the OSG and a provision in the Administrative Code concerning its Legal Office’s powers was misplaced. The Court ruled that such internal authority does not override the OSG’s statutory, primary mandate as the government’s sole representative in such forums. The CSC’s unilateral filing through its own lawyers was therefore a jurisdictional infirmity that warranted the petition’s dismissal.