G.R. No. 155609 - St. Joseph's College vs. St. Joseph's College Workers' Association

Petitioner, the Administrative Officer of Regional Office No. XI of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), was ordered dismissed on September 4, 1992, by then-DOLE Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confesor.
The dismissal order, which also forfeited his leave credits and retirement benefits and disqualified him from future government employment, was based on allegations of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, frequent absences during office hours, and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.

Following the dismissal, petitioner sought reconsideration with the DOLE, which was unsuccessful.
He then appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which, on January 12, 1995, in Resolution No. 95-0230, found him “Notoriously Undesirable” and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with all its accessories.
A motion for reconsideration before the Civil Service Commission was filed but was denied on February 13, 1996, in Resolution No. 96-0987.

On April 12, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals.
He asserted that he received the Civil Service Commission’s resolution on February 13, 1996, on March 29, 1996, and that he required an additional 30 days (from April 13, 1996) to secure certified true copies of pertinent documents to be attached to his petition.
On April 30, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied the motion on the ground that the petition was filed via an improper mode of appeal, as appeals from the Civil Service Commission’s decisions are governed by the Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (or Revised Circular No. 1-91) which requires a petition for review.

After the denial of his extension motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals on September 19, 1996, petitioner then filed what he designated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (or Rule 45) of the Rules of Court.
In his petition, petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals had committed grave abuse of discretion by limiting its review exclusively to petitions for review as provided under the Revised Administrative Circular, thereby ignoring its power to issue writs such as mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto in cases of grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional excess.
Petitioner contended that the documents and evidence considered on appeal had not been introduced or admitted during the formal administrative hearing, and that his only remedy in light of the alleged abuse of discretion was an alternative petition for certiorari.

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that the petition filed by petitioner was for certiorari under Rule 65, relying on several grounds alleging super grave abuse of discretion by Secretary Confesor in handling the administrative case.
The Solicitor General detailed numerous acts by Confesor and the Civil Service Commission, including allegations of falsification of findings, capricious dismissal, and the improper insertion of documents that were never introduced during the formal hearing.
The respondent Civil Service Commission, through its Comment and Office for Legal Affairs, asserted that petitioner’s reliance on Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129 was misplaced, emphasizing that the only proper mode of appeal from its decisions was a petition for review, in conformity with Supreme Court rules.
Petitioner's consolidated reply further argued that, given the grave abuse and the alleged irregularities during the review, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was justified as the appropriate remedy, even if it deviated from the prescribed mode of appeal.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45, given that the proper mode of appeal from a Civil Service Commission resolution is a petition for review as mandated by the Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95.
Whether decisions or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction are amenable to review by a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 or Rule 65, and if so, whether such petition constitutes an alternative mode of appeal.
Whether petitioner's subsequent filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (or Rule 45)—after his motion for extension was denied—can be accepted as a valid substitute for the lost remedy of appeal by petition for review.