ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142062.April 4, 2000]

PAJE vs. CSC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2000.

G.R. No. 142062 (Rosalie Paje, et al v. The Civil Service Commission and Hon. Jejomar Binay).

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed petitioners' appeal from the decision of the Civil Service Commission on the ground that the appeal was late.The facts are as follows:

Petitioners are rural health physicians (RHP) detailed at the District Health Office No. 3 in Makati City.Upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7160 (the Local Government Code), petitioners became employees of the then Municipality of Makati.On March 19, 1996, the City of Makati passed Ordinance No. 96-052 approving the organizational structure of the new City of Makati, reclassifying petitioners as Medical Officer IV, with salary grades 20 and 22, from their previous classification as RHP, with salary grade 24.

Petitioners elevated their case to the Civil Service Commission, claiming that, as a result of their reclassification, they were demoted in rank and salary.However, the CSC dismissed their appeal on the ground that although there was a modification in petitioners' salary grade, the same had no effect on the actual salary they were receiving prior to the reorganization.It was likewise held that petitioners were not exempt from the reorganization implemented by the City of Makati, the only condition for which being that such reorganization must be in accordance with R.A. No. 6656.

On appeal to the CA, the petition was denied for having been filed out of time. It was held that petitioners should have filed their petition within fifteen (15) days from October 4, 1999, when they received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration from the CSC.Since the petition was filed only on November 29, 1999, or after fifty-six (56) days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, petitioners' appeal was late.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration contending that their petition was both a petition for review under Rule 43 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.Consequently, they contended, they had sixty (60) days within which to file their pleading, in accordance with �4 of Rule 65.However, their motion was denied, Hence, this petition.

First.As the decision of the CSC was a final order, petitioners' remedy was to appeal under Rule 43 within fifteen (15) days, in accordance with �4 of Rule 43.

Petitioners contend that their petition was likewise brought under Rule 65.The contention has no merit.A petition for certiorari lies only where there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, petitioners could have appealed but they did not.It is apparent that certiorari was employed by them as a substitute for appeal which they had lost.Thus, the CA committed no reversible error in dismissing the appeal of petitioners.

Second.The dismissal of the present petition is also in order for the following reasons: (a) a copy of the petition was not served on the CA as required by Rule 45, �3, in relation to Rule 13, �4; and (b) petitioners failed to attach to their petition an affidavit of service on the CA and on the adverse party as required by Rule 45, �3.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE