ChanRobles Virtual law Library

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 13 2004 .

G.R. No. 146243 (HON. RAMON "Bong" REVILLA, JR., petitioner, versus HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Former Tenth Division), HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and MR. MATEO B. RAYO, respondents.)

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside the following Resolutions:

a) Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 10, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58946, entitled "HON. RAMON 'Bong' REVILLA, JR., Provincial Governor, Province of Cavite , Petitioner-Appellant, versus HON. CIVIL. SERVICE COMMISSION and MATEO B. RAYO, Respondents-Appellees; "and

b) Resolution No. 000328 of the Civil Service Commission dated February 2, 2000, entitled "RAYO, MATEO B., Re: Gross Neglect of Duty."

Records show that on February 12, 1998, about 12:00 o'clock midnight, then Governor Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. 1 of Cavite, petitioner herein, conducted a surprise inspection of the Cavite Provincial Jail at Trece Martires City. He found shabu paraphernalia and live bullets in one of the cells and that Danilo Espineli, a prisoner, has been staying at the prison guards' barracks, not in his assigned cell.

In his Memorandum dated February 13, 1998, petitioner directed Mateo B. Rayo, Provincial Warden of the Cavite Provincial Jail, private respondent, to submit a written explanation regarding the incidents.

In his letter dated February 14, 1998, private respondent explained that he was only on his 9^th day serving as Provincial Warden when petitioner conducted a surprise inspection of the Provincial Jail. Nonetheless, to clear his name, he informed petitioner that: (1) his first act as Provincial Warden was to stop and prohibit illegal gambling (sakla) in the jail; (2) he immediately ordered the inmates to observe the prison rules prohibiting gambling and drinking and the taking out of inmates from confinement without court orders; and (3) as to Danilo Espineli's violation of the prison rules, the guards on duty should be investigated.

On February 18, 1998, petitioner issued Memorandum Order No.98-16 relieving petitioner of his duties and responsibilities during the pendency of the administrative investigation being conducted against him.

On March 14, 1998, petitioner issued another Memorandum terminating the services of private respondent as Provincial Warden for gross neglect of duty, effective upon notice.

Private respondent then filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) a Notice of Appeal on the ground that in dismissing him from the service, petitioner violated his right to procedural due process.

In its Resolution No. 000328 dated February 2, 2000, the CSC ordered petitioner to file "formal charges" against private respondent and to conduct a hearing; and to restore private respondent to his position as Provincial Warden with payment of backwages and other emoluments.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 001125 dated May 3, 2000.

Hence, on June 14, 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R: SP No. 58946.

The Appellate Court, in its Resolution dated August 10, 2000 dismissed the petition, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, for failure "to substantially conform to the formalities prescribed in Sections 5 and 6(c) of the same Rule in that the petitioner failed to furnish the Court with: a) either a duplicate original or certified true copy of one of the Resolutions it proposes to assail, viz., Resolution No. 000328 dated February 2, 2000 issued by the CSC in 'Rayo, Mateo B., Re: Gross Neglect of Duty;' b) certified true copies of the material portions of the record a quo referred to therein and other supporting papers; and c) proof of service of a copy thereof on the respondents."

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution dated October 10, 2000.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.

Petitioner's present recourse is procedurally flawed. He should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,2 within fifteen (15) days from notice of the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying his motion for reconsideration. We note that the instant petition for certiorari was filed on

December 26, 2000, or 60 days after petitioner received on October 26, 2000 a copy of the challenged Resolution. The period to appeal had long expired. Clearly, petitioner resorted to certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal. This is absolutely impermissible. We have consistently held that certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal.3

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court