Case Digest (G.R. No. 152457)
Facts:
Rodolfo R. Mahinay, G.R. No. 152457, April 30, 2008, Supreme Court En Banc, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Mahinay, then a PEZA police officer, was charged by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) on June 10, 1998 for receiving unofficial fees (an “extra amount” of P300 per escort) from Fritz Logistics Phils., Inc. in connection with his escort duties for Fritz trucks between Baguio City and Manila. The charge alleged violation of Section 46(b)(9) of the Administrative Code of 1987 in relation to Sec. 22(i), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.In his Answer Mahinay admitted receipt of the P300 but explained it as a voluntary traveling/meal allowance and necessary to defray incidental expenses; he also asserted compliance with a later directive that stopped such payments. At the September 30, 1998 hearing he and counsel waived further personal attendance. The Special Prosecutor presented one witness, Jerry H. Stehmeier (Managing Director of Fritz), who executed an affidavit (dated September 9, 1998) recanting an earlier February 10, 1998 statement and testified that the extra P300 was in fact extracted from Fritz and received by Mahinay.
On January 8, 1999 PEZA found Mahinay guilty and imposed the penalty of forced resignation (though allowing monetary and fringe benefits as permitted by law). PEZA denied reconsideration on March 11, 1999. Mahinay appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In Resolution No. 000878 (March 30, 2000) the CSC affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the penalty from forced resignation to dismissal pursuant to Section 52 (A.9), Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and Sec. 22(i), Rule XIV (the dispositive was later formalized in a July 21, 2000 denial of reconsideration in Resolution No. 001698). Mahinay received the CSC denial on August 11, 2000.
On September 12, 2000 Mahinay filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Certiorari (seeking up to November 10, 2000). On October 30, 2000 the CA denied the motion, ruling the motion was the wrong mode of appeal and filed out of time, explaining that the proper remedy from a quasi‑judicial body like the CSC is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to be filed within 15 days from notice. Mahinay filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on November 9, 2000. The CA, in a Resolution dated April 6, 2001, stated it had promulgated its October 30, 2000 Resolution dismissing the petition for being the wrong mode and out of time, ordered entry of judgment, and noted without action the November 9 petition. Mahinay’s motion for reconsideration at the CA was denied in a March 6...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s action as the wrong mode of appeal (treating certiorari as an improper substitute for a Rule 43 petition for review)?
- Was petitioner’s appeal filed out of time such that the CA pro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)