G.R. No. L-9090 - Eastboard Navigation, Ltd. vs. Juan Ysmael and Co., Inc.

On March 7, 1993, at around 6:30 in the morning, petitioner PO1 Virgilio Cara, along with his companion Abraham Rosagaran, went to a bakery located at the intersection of Anonas Street and Kamias Road, Quezon City.
Petitioner parked his owner-type jeep in front of the bakery.
While inside the bakery buying bread, petitioner observed a blue Nissan Bluebird (plate No. PN-113), owned and driven by respondent Teodoro B. Chua, sideswipe his parked jeep.
Despite the sideswipe, respondent Chua continued driving until petitioner and his companion signaled him to pull over.

Respondent Chua eventually stopped; he briefly alighted from his vehicle upon being signaled.
An argument ensued between the parties: petitioner’s companion, Rosagaran, approached respondent Chua and an altercation quickly developed.
In the ensuing physical confrontation, respondent Chua struck Rosagaran on the face with his fist.
Petitioner, introducing himself as a police officer, invited respondent Chua to the police station.
In response, respondent Chua immediately pummeled petitioner Cara on the face, causing him to fall and become dazed.
A further scuffle broke out between respondent Chua and petitioner’s companion (Rosagaran), until the arrival of police from the Anonas Sub-station who intervened to pacify the situation.

On April 14, 1993, the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City subpoenaed petitioner Cara for a hearing regarding an administrative case filed by respondent Chua.
At the PLEB hearings, both parties presented their evidence regarding the incident.
On July 19, 1994, the PLEB rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his immediate dismissal from the Philippine National Police (PNP).
Petitioner Cara then appealed the PLEB decision to the Regional Appellate Board of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
On May 22, 1995, the Regional Appellate Board sustained the PLEB’s findings and dismissed petitioner’s appeal.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NAPOLCOM resolution dated August 15, 1995.
On January 18, 1996, petitioner filed a petition for review or appeal with the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, contesting the NAPOLCOM resolution.
On February 2, 1996, the petition was denied by NAPOLCOM on the ground that the decision was not appealable to the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government.
On April 2, 1996, petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, seeking to set aside his dismissal and to compel his reinstatement to the PNP.
On May 10, 1996, the Court of Appeals issued a decision dismissing petitioner’s petition, which led to the present appeal.

Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus (or viewed as a petition for review) is an appropriate remedy, given that such special civil actions are designed to correct errors of jurisdiction rather than errors of judgment based on factual findings.

Whether the petition for review was filed within the prescribed period, considering that if filed out of time, the petition should be dismissed regardless of the merits of the underlying administrative case.