Facts:

• Marcelo G. Tuazon, Jr. and Rodolfo M. Agdeppa filed a petition for review on certiorari against Guillermo Godoy and Rommel Trinidad.
• The case originated on February 2, 1995, when the National Housing Authority (NHA) approved Celcon Construction's bid, owned by Tuazon, for a two-storey building in Taguig, Metro Manila.
• The project was contracted for 120 days at a cost of P704,951.15, with a formal contract signed on March 20, 1995.
• During construction, Tuazon and Agdeppa faced challenges with NHA officials, particularly Godoy and Trinidad, who allegedly made unreasonable demands and withheld payments.
• The NHA issued a warning letter on June 6, 1995, citing a work slippage of 17.24%.
• The petitioners claimed that the respondents manipulated reports, hindering payment collection, leading to a halt in construction on October 1, 1995, due to financial issues.
• On November 29, 1995, they filed a sworn statement with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against Godoy and Trinidad for various misconducts.
• The CSC dismissed the complaint on January 28, 1997, for lack of a prima facie case, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals on April 26, 2000.
• The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of a petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.
• The Court determined that the petitioners chose the incorrect remedy by filing a petition for certiorari instead of an appeal.
• The CSC did not exhibit gra...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court highlighted that the petitioners improperly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 43, which is the appropriate remedy for appealing CSC decisions.
• The Court reiterated that certiorari cannot replace a lost or lapsed appeal reme...continue reading