G.R. No. 37986 - Mercado vs. Municipality President of Macabebe, Pampanga

Petitioner Delia R. Nerves, a teacher at Torres High School, was among twenty public school teachers charged with grave administrative offenses.
The charges arose from her alleged participation in an illegal mass action/strike on 19–21 September 1990 at Liwasang Bonifacio and her defiance of a Return-to-Work Order issued by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).
The offenses included grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of the Civil Service Law, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and absence without official leave (AWOL).

Following the administrative charges, petitioner Nerves was dismissed by then Secretary Isidro D. Carino of DECS.
She appealed the DECS decision first to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and later to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The CSC set aside the prior decision and rendered a new one finding her guilty of “Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service” with the penalty of a six (6) month suspension—which was considered already served due to the elapsed time—thereby reinstating her without back salaries.

On 21 November 1995, Nerves filed a 26-page petition for certiorari under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals.
In her petition, she explicitly stated: “This is a petition for certiorari...” and referred to filing under Rule 65, while also noting that pursuant to Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91) the petition was submitted with this Honorable Court rather than the Supreme Court.
Despite the proper filing, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dated 27 November 1995 dismissing the petition outright for being filed by the wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on 22 January 1996 was denied.

Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 sets forth the rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from CSC decisions.

Appeals must be filed as a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order, or denial of a petition for reconsideration.
The filing requirements include: submission of seven (7) legible copies with proper verification, indication of the original intended for the Court, payment of docketing and other lawful fees, and deposit for costs.
The petition must state the full names of the parties, include a concise statement of facts, issues, and grounds for review, be accompanied by certified copies of the resolutions, and contain certification against forum-shopping.

Although the petition was erroneously labelled as a petition for certiorari rather than a petition for review, it substantially complied with all the essential filing requirements.
Additional guidelines from Circular 2-90 emphasize that an appeal taken by the wrong or inappropriate mode should be dismissed; however, the courts may overlook minor procedural lapses if they do not impede the pursuit of substantial justice.

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing Nerves’ petition outright due to it being filed as a petition for certiorari (under Rule 65) instead of as a petition for review, as mandated by Revised Administrative Circular 1-95.

Whether the petitioner’s submission, despite its erroneous labelling, complied substantially with the prescribed requirements (timely filing, verification, payment of fees, proof of service, and proper indication of documentary copies).

Whether a minor procedural error, such as the mislabelling of the petition, should warrant outright dismissal when the ultimate purpose of the procedural rules is to ensure the equitable and expeditious dispensation of justice.