Case Digest (G.R. No. 182267)
Facts:
Pagayanan R. Hadji‑Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182267, August 28, 2009, Supreme Court En Banc, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Pagayanan Hadji‑Sirad, then an employee of the Commission on Audit–ARMM, was administratively charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for allegedly permitting another person to take the Career Service (CS) Professional Examination in her stead on October 17, 1993. The Formal Charge was based on discrepancies found when comparing her Personal Data Sheet (PDS, dated November 10, 1994) and examination records for the CS Professional Examinations of November 29, 1992 and October 17, 1993 — specifically, marked differences in the photographs and signatures. A formal investigation ensued and hearings were repeatedly postponed at petitioner’s requests; both parties presented evidence and witnesses during hearings held in 2004.The Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. XII rendered a Decision dated February 27, 2006 finding petitioner guilty and meting the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties. CSCRO denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 30, 2006. Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which, in Resolution No. 070875 dated May 7, 2007, affirmed the regional decision and, in Resolution No. 072196 dated November 26, 2007, denied her motion for reconsideration; the CSC stressed the probative force of the differing pictures and signatures and applied res ipsa loquitur to conclude another person took the October 17, 1993 exam for petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 02103‑MIN), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CSC. The CA, by Resolutions dated January 18, 2008 and March 12, 2008, dismissed the petition for being the wrong mode of appeal (appeal should have been by petition for review under Rule 43) and for petitioner’s failure to state the material date of filing of her motion for reconsideration and to append a certified copy of that motion, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46. Petiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the CSC resolutions?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 petition on procedural grounds (wrong mode of appeal and failure to comply with filing requirements)?
- Did the Civil Service Commission commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding petitione...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)