Case Digest (G.R. No. 160657)
Facts:
Civil Service Commission and Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Nimfa P. Asensi, G.R. No. 160657, December 17, 2004, Supreme Court En Banc, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Civil Service Commission (CSC) imposed dismissal on respondent Nimfa P. Asensi, a Revenue District Officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), for allegedly falsifying entries in her 11 April 1997 Personal Data Sheet (PDS) concerning her educational background. The Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) issued a Decision on 9 July 2003 holding that dismissal was not warranted; its denial of a motion for reconsideration was promulgated in a Resolution dated 29 October 2003.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) received a copy of the 29 October 2003 Resolution on 7 November 2003 and on 21 November 2003 filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari until 22 December 2003; the extension was granted on 9 December 2003. Despite that, on 25 November 2003 the CSC filed a Manifestation declaring its intent to file its own petition, and on 27 November 2003 the CSC’s Office of Legal Affairs filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court.
Asensi filed a comment pointing out that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45, not a special civil action under Rule 65. The OSG, on 22 December 2003, withdrew its motion for extension, asserting the CSC would actively pursue the case. The Supreme Court earlier dismissed the CSC’s Rule 65 petition in a Resolution dated 30 June 2004; the CSC then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (6 August 2004), arguing inter alia that Section 16(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987 authorizes its Office of Legal Affairs to represent the CSC and invoking a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the OSG dated 6 June 2002.
The Court required comments from the OSG and Asensi and asked both the OSG and CSC to produce the MOA. The OSG contended the CSC had already decided to file its own petition irrespective of the OSG’s extension motion and urged that, in the interest of justice, the CSC’s petition be treated as one for review. The CSC maintained it believed itself in a better position to defend ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Civil Service Commission’s Office of Legal Affairs, on its own and without deputization by the Solicitor General, represent and file pleadings for the CSC before the Supreme Court?
- Was the remedy resorted to by the CSC — a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 — the proper mode of review from the Court of Appeals’ Decision, or should the CSC have filed a petition for review under Rule 45?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in limiting its inquiry to Asensi’s 11 April 1997 Personal Data Sheet and in concluding ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)