EN
BANC
DELIA
R. NERVES,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 123561
July 31, 1997
-versus-
CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION,COURT OF
APPEALS and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND
SPORTS,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This petition
for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 seeks to set aside the 27 November 1995 and 22 January 1996
Resolutions
of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari of Delia
R. Nerves filed pursuant to Art. IX-A, Sec. 7, of the Constitution, and
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for being an inappropriate remedy or
wrong
mode of appeal.
Petitioner Delia
R. Nerves, a teacher of Torres
High School, was among the twenty [20] public school teachers who were
administratively charged and subsequently dismissed by then Secretary
Isidro
D. Carino of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports [DECS] for
allegedly participating in the mass action/illegal strike of teachers
on
19-21 September 1990 at Liwasang Bonifacio and for defying a
Return-to-Work
Order issued by DECS, which acts constituted grave misconduct, gross
neglect
of duty, gross violation of Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations,
refusal
to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service, and absence without official leave
[AWOL],
in violation of P. D. No. 807 otherwise known as The Civil Service
Decree
of the Philippines.[1]
Petitioner Nerves
appealed the DECS Decision to
the Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB] and later, "after a
complicated
procedure," to the Civil Service Commission [CSC]. The CSC set aside
the
Decision and rendered a new one the dispositive portion of which reads
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby finds
Delia
R. Nerves guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service
for which she is meted the penalty of six [6] months suspension.
Considering
the period of time that she has been out of the service, the penalty of
suspension is already deemed served. Accordingly, she is automatically
reinstated in the service without back salaries.[2]
Nerves elevated
the CSC Decision to the Court of
Appeals in a 26-page petition filed on 21 November 1995 stating, among
others:
However, in a
Resolution dated 27 November 1995,
the Court of Appeals summarily dismissed the petition:
The instant petition for certiorari filed
on
21 November 1995 is hereby ordered dismissed outright for being the
wrong
or inappropriate mode of appeal. [par. 4, Supreme Court Circular No.
2-90,
dated 9 March 1990].
Under Supreme Court Revised
Administrative
Circular
No. 1-95 [Revised Circular No. 1-91] appeals from judgments or final
orders
or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission is by petition for
review
[par. 1 and 5, supra]. Petition for certiorari dismissed.[4]
On 22 January
1996 the motion for reconsideration
of the resolution was denied.[5]
Hence the instant petition.
The issue before
Us is whether respondent Court
of Appeals was correct in dismissing outright the petition of 21
November
1995. Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 [Revised Circular No.
1-91] prescribing the rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeals
from
judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and
quasi-judicial
agencies pertinently provides:
(4) Period to appeal.- The
appeal
shall be taken within fifteen [15] days from notice of the award,
judgment,
final order, or from the date of its last publication, if publication
is
required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's
motion
for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment.
(5) How appeal taken.-
Appeal
shall
be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven [7] legible
copies with the Court of Appeals, a copy of which shall be served on
the
adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. Proof of
service
of the petition on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo
shall
be attached to the petition. The original copy of the petition intended
for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.
Upon filing the petition for review,
the
petitioner
shall pay to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals the docketing
and
other lawful fees and deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs
(6) Contents of the
petition.-
The
petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to
the
case, without impleading the lower courts or agencies either as
petitioners
or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues
involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied
by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the
award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with
certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are
referred
to therein and other supporting papers; and, (d) contain a sworn
certification
against forum shopping as provided in Revised Circular No. 28-91. The
petition
shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed
within
the period fixed herein.
(7) Effect of failure to comply
with
requirements.
- The failure of petitioner to comply with the foregoing
requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit
for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and
the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
grounds
for the dismissal thereof.
Similarly,
under Circular 2-90 which lays down the
guidelines in appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court:
(4) Erroneous appeal. - An appeal
taken
to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or
inappropriate
mode shall be dismissed.
The Solicitor
General contends that petitioner Nerves
failed to fully comply with Revised Administrative Circular 1-95
because
what was filed with the Court of Appeals was, in form and substance, a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and not a
petition
for review, and that no less than petitioner herself stated in par. 1
of
her petition: "This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules
of Court," and the fact that it was qualified by par. 2 quoted above
did
not automatically convert it to a petition for review in compliance
with
Revised Administrative Circular 1-95.[6]
A cursory reading
of the records shows the following
factual backdrop: (a) The petition was filed on 21 November 1995 or
within
15 days from notice of the denial of petitioner's motion for
reconsideration
by the Civil Service Commission, which was on 6 November 1995; (b) The
petition was verified,[7]
with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party [DECS] and
the court or agency a quo [Civil Service Commission].[8]
The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals was
indicated as such by petitioner;[9]
(c) Upon filing the petition, petitioner paid to the Court of Appeals
the
docketing and other lawful fees and deposited the sum of P500 for
costs;
and, (d) The petition stated the full names of the parties to the case,
contained a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the
grounds relied upon for the review, accompanied by clearly legible
certified
copies of the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission that were
sought
to be set aside, stated the material dates and contained the required
certification
against forum-shopping.cralaw:red
Prescinding from
the foregoing, we hold that the
petition filed by Nerves with the Court of Appeals substantially
complied
with Revised Administrative Circular 1-95. That it was erroneously
labelled
as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is
only
a minor procedural lapse, not fatal to the appeal. Although it is
stated
in par. 1 of her petition it is one "for certiorari filed pursuant to
Article
IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Philippines," and,
additionally,
"under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court." The same par. 1 is explained by
par. 2 which states that, "But per Supreme Court Revised Administrative
Circular No. 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91) petitioner is filing the
instant petition with this Honorable Court (Court of Appeals) instead
of
the Supreme Court." It must be emphasized that as long as there is
substantial
compliance with Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, the petition
should be given due course. Moreover, the circular must be so
interpreted
and applied as to attain, not defeat, the ultimate purpose of all rules
of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as
expeditiously
as possible.[10]
More importantly,
the appeal on its face appears
to be impressed with merit. Hence, the Court of Appeals should have
overlooked
the insubstantial defects of the petition including the fact that
the Civil Service Commission was impleaded as party respondent not
otherwise
required in par. 6 (a) of Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 in
order to do justice to the parties concerned. There is indeed nothing
sacrosanct
about procedural rules, which should be liberally construed in order to
promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy
and
inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding.[11]
As it has been said, where the rigid application of the rules would
frustrate
substantial justice,[12]
or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance, the courts are
justified
in exempting a particular case from the operation of the rules.cralaw:red
Besides, We have
already ruled in A-One Feeds,
Inc., v. Court of Appeals:[13]
Litigations should, as much as possible,
be
decided
on the merits and not on technicality. Dismissal of appeals purely on
technical
grounds is frowned upon and the rules of procedure ought not to be
applied
in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure,
not override, substantial justice and thereby defeat their very aims.
As
has been the constant ruling of this Court, every party litigant should
be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination
of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
WHEREFORE, the
Petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 27 November 1995 and 22
January
1996 are hereby SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is directed to
REINSTATE
the 21 November 1995 petition. No costs.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo,
Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J.,
Kapunan, Hermosisima, Jr. and
Torres, Jr., JJ., are on leave.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 33; Annex "C."
[2]
Id., p. 59; Annex "A."
[3]
Id., p. 29; Annex "C."
[4]
Id., p. 28; Annex "B."
[5]
Id., p. 27; Annex "A."
[6]
Memorandum of the Solicitor General, pp. 5-8.
[7]
Rollo, p. 55; Annex "C."
[8]
Id., pp. 56-57.
[9]
Records, pp. 1-29.
[10]
Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 112547, 18 July 1994, 234 SCRA
192.
[11]
Rule 1, Sec. 2, Rules of Court.
[12]
Blanco v. Bernabe, 63 Phil. 124 [1936].
[13]
No. L-35560, 30 October 1980, 100 SCRA 590, 594. |