GR 160657; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160657 June 30, 2004
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. NIMFA P. ASENSI, respondent.
FACTS
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed respondent Nimfa Asensi, a Revenue District Officer, for falsifying her educational background in her Personal Data Sheet. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC’s resolution. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as counsel of record for the CSC, received the CA’s denial of reconsideration and filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, which was granted. Unbeknownst to the OSG, the CSC itself, through its own Office of Legal Affairs, subsequently filed a separate Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, assailing the same CA decision. This prompted the OSG to withdraw its motion for extension. Respondent Asensi moved for the dismissal of the CSC’s petition, arguing it was the wrong remedy.
ISSUE
Whether the Petition for Certiorari filed by the CSC is the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals decision.
RULING
No, the petition is dismissible for being the wrong mode of appeal. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is only available to correct errors of jurisdiction or acts rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The alleged error of the Court of Appeals—its factual finding that Asensi was not guilty of falsification—constitutes at most an error of judgment, correctible by a timely petition for review under Rule 45. Since a plain and adequate remedy (Rule 45) was available, certiorari is unwarranted.
The OSG, as the government’s primary appellate counsel, had correctly initiated the proper procedure by seeking an extension to file a Rule 45 petition. The CSC’s independent filing of a Rule 65 petition was procedurally fatal. The Court further clarified that while a government agency’s legal office may represent it in certain instances, the primary authority rests with the OSG, especially where, as here, there was no showing the OSG took a position adverse to the CSC. The period for filing the correct petition for review had lapsed. Consequently, the CSC’s petition was dismissed.