G.R. No. 191412 ; January 17, 2012
LETICIA A. CADENA, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Leticia A. Cadena, a State Auditing Examiner II at the Commission on Audit, was charged with grave misconduct by the Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR). The charge stemmed from an incident during the Career Service Professional Examination on June 29, 1997, where, despite instructions to clear desks, Cadena kept her Notice of Assignment. During the examination, the examiner caught her with this notice, on which some examination questions were reproduced. In her defense, Cadena claimed she arrived late and failed to comprehend the instructions, and that she copied unfamiliar terms only to later look up their meanings. Although she manifested a desire to file a position paper during the investigations, her counsel failed to submit one. The CSC-NCR rendered a decision based on available records, finding her guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty and imposing the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. She appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which dismissed her appeal for being filed out of time. She then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CSC’s dismissal, ruling the CSC-NCR decision had become final and executory. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, she filed the present Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as framed by the Supreme Court, pertains to the propriety of the dismissal of the petition due to non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition itself raised issues regarding: 1) whether the CSC-NCR erred in its ruling, and 2) whether her counsel’s failure to submit a position paper constituted fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence warranting reinvestigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The petition was dismissible for non-compliance with substantial requirements under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, the petitioner failed to include a statement of material dates in her petition as required under Sections 4(b) and 5 of Rule 45. The Court had previously issued a resolution requiring her to comply with this rule, and while the petition was initially denied for failure to file a required reply, it was reinstated after her counsel’s explanation. However, the core defect regarding the statement of material dates remained. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The CSC correctly dismissed her appeal from the CSC-NCR decision for being filed out of time, rendering that decision final and executory. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the substantive issues she raised regarding the merits of the administrative case or her counsel’s negligence. The petition was denied.