Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Conti vs. Court of Appeals (Simagala) substantiate the same.

Ommission is intentional to support appointment as


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