ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 146243.
REVILLA JR. vs. CA
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
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
b) Resolution No. 000328 of the Civil Service Commission dated
Records show that on
In his Memorandum dated
In his letter dated
On
On
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
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by
the CSC in its Resolution No. 001125 dated
Hence, on
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
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
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Now Senator.
2 Section 1 of Rule 45 provides:
"Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth, (1a, 2a)"
3 Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127275, June 20. 2003, 404 SCRA 442, citing Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000); Fortune Guarantee and Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110701, March 12, 2000, 379 SCRA 7, citing Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 870 (1997); National Irrigation Administration vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129169, November 17, 1999 318 SCRA255, Bernardo vs. Court of Anneals. 275 SCRA413 (1997); and others.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH