G.R. No. 197762, March 7, 2017
Career Executive Service Board (CESB) vs. Civil Service Commission (CSC), et al.

FACTS

The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to assail a decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC had assumed jurisdiction over an appeal from a CESB decision and ruled that certain positions in the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) did not require third-level eligibility. The CESB contested the CSC’s jurisdiction, arguing the appeal involved a legal controversy between government agencies and that its own decisions were appealable to the Office of the President.
The main opinion of the Court deemed the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition as an inappropriate remedy. It held that a decision of the CSC is appealable via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Citing Mahinay v. Court of Appeals, it ruled that the availability of this appeal precluded resort to certiorari, even with an allegation of grave abuse of discretion, as one of the requisites for certiorari is the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

ISSUE

Was the petition for certiorari and prohibition an appropriate remedy to challenge the CSC decision, notwithstanding the availability of an appeal under Rule 43?

RULING

Justice Bersamin, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred in the result (dismissal) but dissented on the procedural holding. He argued that the availability of an appeal does not automatically bar certiorari. The requirement that “there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy” means the petitioner must allege and prove that the existing appeal is not equally beneficial, speedy, and adequate to promptly relieve the injurious effects of the assailed judgment.
He clarified that Rule 65 contemplates situations where an available remedy is not plain, speedy, and adequate. Furthermore, certiorari may still prosper in exceptional circumstances, such as when the questioned act constitutes an oppressive exercise of authority. Justice Bersamin viewed the case as potentially falling under this exception, given the CESB’s vigorous allegation that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion by unduly asserting jurisdiction over an inter-agency legal dispute.
He also distinguished Mahinay, noting it involved a disciplinary case, whereas the instant case centered on a jurisdictional conflict between two constitutional bodies—a strictly legal question not necessarily falling under the quasi-judicial resolutions reviewable by Rule 43. Thus, he believed certiorari could be an appropriate vehicle. However, he ultimately voted to dismiss the petition, agreeing with the substantive correctness of the main opinion on other grounds.