Facts:

• Rosa F. Mercado, a Senior Education Program Specialist at the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), was accused by Ma. Luisa F. Dimayuga, Dean of the College of Criminology at Republican College, of arrogance, abuse of power, ignorance of regulations, and incompetence in evaluating the college's Master of Criminology program.
• Mercado denied these accusations in her explanation submitted on January 26, 1999.
• Despite her denial, CHED found her guilty of discourtesy and issued a reprimand with a stern warning on September 27, 1999.
• Mercado filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that a prior resolution by former CHED Chairman Angel A. Alcala had already dismissed the complaint based on an Affidavit of Desistance by Dimayuga.
• Doubts about the authenticity of these documents led CHED to conduct a thorough investigation.
• On December 24, 1999, CHED resolved to investigate further and placed Mercado under preventive suspension.
• Mercado failed to attend the subsequent hearings despite being summoned.
• The investigation concluded that the Alcala Resolution and Affidavit of Desistance were not genuine.
• Consequently, CHED found Mercado guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and falsification of official documents, resulting in her dismissal on June 19, 2000.
• Mercado appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially denied her appeal but later reversed its decision, ordering her reinstatement based on newly discovered evidence, including signature analyses and an affidavit from Alcala affirming the resolution.
• CHED appealed to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the CSC's decision and affirmed Mercado's dismissal.
• Mercado then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals, leading to the present appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in denying Mercado's Motion for Leave.
2. No, the Alcala Affidavit do...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in denying Mercado's Motion for Leave because the 30 March 2007 Decision had not yet attained finality.
• The withdrawal of Mercado's previous counsel, Atty. Sindingan, was made with her written conformity, and thus, she was not bound by his receipt of the decision.
• The period for filing a motion for reconsideration should be reckoned from the date Mercado received actual ...continue reading