GR 182267; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182267 ; August 28, 2009
PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad, a COA employee, was formally charged by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The charge stemmed from allegations that she allowed another person to take the Career Service Professional Examination on October 17, 1993, on her behalf. The CSC based its finding on a comparison of pictures and signatures, noting discrepancies between the examination records and her subsequently filed Personal Data Sheet. After a formal investigation where the prosecution presented its evidence, the CSC Regional Office found her guilty and ordered her dismissal. The CSC Commission Proper affirmed this decision. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the CSC resolutions.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy and for procedural deficiencies.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order or resolution of the Civil Service Commission. The CSC is a quasi-judicial agency whose decisions, pursuant to Rule 43, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, should be appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review. A Petition for Certiorari is only appropriate to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not to review the factual or legal correctness of the CSC’s evaluation of evidence. Petitioner’s recourse was a Rule 43 petition, not a Rule 65 petition. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s dismissal based on petitioner’s failure to comply with procedural requirements for a certiorari petition, specifically the failure to state material dates regarding her motion for reconsideration before the CSC and to attach a copy of said motion. These procedural lapses warranted the petition’s dismissal. The Court also found no merit in the substantive administrative case, affirming the CSC’s findings that the evidence substantially supported the conclusion of dishonesty.