ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142653. June 27, 2000]

JOSE TING LAN P. UY, JR., vs. CSC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 27 2000.

G.R. No. 142653 (Jose Ting Lan P. Uy, Jr., vs. Civil Service Commission and National Power Corporation.)

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 seeking the reversal of the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 6 August 1999 and 16 March 2000, which respectively, denied the petition and motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. The Court of Appeals denied the petition assailing Resolution Nos. 960579 and 973311 of the Civil Service Commission on the ground that petitioner availed of the wrong mode of appeal. The appellate court pointed out that since the resolutions subject of review were rendered by the Civil Service Commission then petitioners should have availed of the remedy under Rule 43, and not under Rule 65. Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the special civil action under Rule 65 used by petitioner was resorted to by him as a substitute for his lost appeal in view of his failure to file a petition for review on time.

The Court of Appeals was correct in not giving due course to the petition. Indeed, petitioner sought the review of the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission which affirmed the decision of the NAPOCOR in Administrative Case No. 90-23 directing the dismissal of petitioner from the service for grave misconduct, dishonesty, violation of Office Rules and Regulation and acts prejudicial to the interest of NAPOCOR. In accordance with the Rules of Court, resolution of the Civil Service Commission are appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43, to wit:

Rule 43

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND

QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Section 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgment, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (Underscoring supplied).

Hence, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error in its aforesaid resolutions. Moreover, after a careful study of the facts of the case, we find the petition to be devoid of merit.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE