Conti vs. Court of Appeals (Simagala)
Ommission is intentional to support appointment as
G.R. No. 134441; May 19, 1999
Petitioners: Indalicio P. Conti
Respondents: CA, CSC, and PUP
Emergency Recit:
Conti was appointed by PUP as Assistant Prof. IV under NCC 33 which provides for
the criteria in ranking faculty members. Pursuant to NCC 68 amended NCC 33
Conti filed PDS for his points to be formally recognized to earn a promotion where he
stated that he was a graduate of masteral degree in business administration. After
examination and evaluation, he ranked 8th and was appointed as Prof. The CSC
Director asked the Pres. of PUP for Contis MBA diploma to verify an information that
he was not a graduate of MBA to which Conti countered that he took MBA units and
did not indicate that he completed the same and that the it was an honest mistake since
the same was not a requirement for the position, he neither benefitted nor gained undue
advantage. He was found by CSC guilty of dishonesty and was dismissed, he asked
for reconsideration but it remained unacted up until this petition. He then file petition for
certio under R65 to Sc whi in turn referred it CA pursuant to RAC 1-95, CA dismissed
the same for being filed out of time and that mode of appeal should be petition for
review and not via certiorari. SC held that were it not for the attendance of exceptional
circumstance, Contis petition would have been dismissed. CSC failed to resolve
Contis motion fore reconsideration for more than 2 years up until this petition. CSCs
failure to resolve virtually amounted to denial of right to due process and right to speedy
disposition of his case. Thus, recourse to certiorari is proper not only where there is a
clear deprivation of petitioners fundamental right to due process; but so also where
other special circumstances warrant immediate and more direct action. Remanded to
CA.
Doctrine/s:
1. An essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary remedies under
the Rules is an absence of an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Facts:
1. Repol PUP appointed Conti as Assistant Professor IV pursuant to National
Compensation Circular 33 (NCC 33) which provides for criteria in ranking
faculty members. Conti later filed with PUP-HRMD his personal data sheet
(PSD) required for faculty reclassified or promoted pursuant to NCC 68 -
amended NCC 33 - for his points to be formally recognized to earn promotion
where he stated that he finished masteral degree in business administration.
After the examination and evaluation by PASUC. Conti placed 8th among the
candidates and was thereby classified and appointed as Professor I. Olonan
- President of PUP - confirmed his appointment with Pingol - Director II of
CSC-NCR. Pingol later wrote Olonan asking for a copy of Contis MBA
diploma to verify an information received that Conti was not a masteral degree
holder. When furnished a copy, Conti contend that a masteral degrees was
not a requisite for the position, hence he had not benefited nor gained undue
advantage over other faculty and that it was a honest mistake. Conti was
charged with dishonesty.
2. CSC: Gulity of dishonesty, dismissed from service. Misrepresented that he is
a graduate of MBA, and the defense that Conti did not claim completion but
only for units deserves no consideration as no proof was presented to
substantiate the same.
Prof. I. Conti asked for reconsideration numerous times but CSC did not
act upon the same, prompting Conti to file with SC petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus contending that CSC acted without jurisdiction
when it heard the case and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction when it has not acted for more than a year on the MR.
Case was referred to CA.
3. CA: Dismissed. Filed out of time, Rule 43 states that appeal shall be taken
within via petition for review within 15days from notice of assailed judgement,
almost 3 months passed its due date. Further mode of appeal was cetiorari
making it doubly dismissible. MR denied.
4. Conti argues that his action is an original action under Rule 65 and not an
appeal under Rule 43, SolGen shares this stance. PUP countered that it was
an appeal and that it was filed out of time.
Issue/s: (Please emphasize on the relevant issue)
1. Whether recourse to certiorari is proper. YES
Held:
Issue 1
1. Prior Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (RAC) Rule is that, decision,
order, or ruling of CSC was unappealable and that the aggrieved party should
proceed to SC alone on certiorari under Rule 65 w/in 30days from receipt of
assailed judgment. After RAC was made effective in 95, appeal from
judgments of quasi-judicial agencies such as CSC may be take to CA via
petition for review w/in 15days fr. notice of assailed judgment. cases which
are pending and may thereafter be filed are considered petitions for review
and shall be referred to CA.
2. In this case, Contis initial petition v. CSC filed with SC could have been
dismissed were it not for the attendance of exceptional circumstance.
3. An essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary remedies under
the Rules is an absence of an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. A recourse to certiorari is proper not only
where there is a clear deprivation of petitioners fundamental right to due
process, but so also where other special circumstances warrant immediate
and more direct action.
4. In this case, CSC failed to resolve Contis motion fore reconsideration for more
than 2 years up until this petition. CSCs failure to resolve virtually amounted
to denial of right to due process and right to speedy disposition of his case.
Thus, recourse to certiorari is proper not only where there is a clear deprivation
of petitioners fundamental right to due process; but so also where other
special circumstances warrant immediate and more direct action.
Dispositive Portion: Given the circumstances, it should behoove the appellate court
to resolve the case on its merits. WHEREFORE, the case is REMANDED to the Court
of Appeals for further proceedings. No costs.