29. WINSTON F.
GARCIA, in his capacity as President and General Manager of the
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS vs COURT OF APPEALS and
RUDY C. TESORO,
G.R. No. 169005 January 28, 2013
- GSIS published an Invitation to Pre-Qualify to Bid for the construction of the GSIS Iloilo
City Field Office.
- It declared the bid of Embrocal Builders, Inc. (Embrocal) as the "Lowest Calculated and
Responsive Bid."
- Garcia, then GSIS President and General Manager, issued Office Order reassigning
Tesoro and designating him as SVP, which was to take immediately.
- Meanwhile, Tesoro had approved and signed the Disbursement Voucher for the amount
as mobilization fee for the building construction contract.
- Embrocal received the check payment and issued the corresponding receipt.
- However, due to several letters from losing bidders and the protest filed by F. Gurrea
Construction, Inc. questioning the conduct of the bidding, SVP Disuanco investigated the
matter.
- The Report prepared by SVP-FOG concluded that the bidding process conducted by the
BAC was flawed for non-compliance with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184. It was further
observed that the field office committed oversights.
- Tesoro was formally charged with Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct and/or
Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations as provided under the
Administrative Code of 1987 the Civil Service Commission Resolution .
- Tesoro filed before the CA a Petition With Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Tesoro:
- On May 24, 2004, petitioner rendered his Decision finding private respondent
administratively liable
- Tesoro filed a motion for reconsideration from the May 24, 2004 Decision but it was
denied by petitioner in his Resolution dated July 5, 2004.
- Tesoro filed a Comment before the CA and contended that:
o Tesoro’s petition for certiorari is already moot and academic with the rendition of
the decision in the administrative case.
o private respondent is misleading the appellate court when the petition alleged that
the Formal Charge was issued without any preliminary investigation.
o That private respondent violated the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies when he filed the petition for certiorari despite the availability of appeal
- Aside from the petition filed in the CA, private respondent also appealed the order of
preventive suspension, as well as the Decision dated May 24, 2004 finding him
administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct and imposing the
penalty of dismissal from service, to the CSC
- The CA modified the Decision and declaring Tesoro to be guilty of SIMPLE NEGLECT
OF DUTY.
- Petitioner received a copy of the above decision on April 22, 2005, and thus had only
until May 7, 2005 within which to file a motion for reconsideration.
- However, on May 4, 2005, it filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File the Motion for
Reconsideration alleging that the lawyer in charge of the case, had to immediately take a
flight because her father died; The motion for reconsideration was filed on May 16, 2005.
- Private respondent filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment and Writ of Execution asserting
that the decision had attained finality for failure of petitioner to file a timely motion for
reconsideration or appeal.26 He likewise filed a Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw
Appeal in CSC Adm. Case No. 04-001 (Preventive Suspension and Illegal Dismissal)
- By Resolution dated July 20, 2005, the CA, citing the case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc.
v. Japson denied petitioner’s motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration and
ISSUES:
- Did the CA gravely err in failing to appreciate and apply the principle of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies when it gave due course to the Petition for Certiorari filed by
respondent?
-
- Tesoro,n his Comment, private respondent argues that with the denial by the CA of
petitioner’s motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration, the April 11, 2005
Decision of the CA is already final and executory. Hence, he prays for the outright
dismissal of the present petition.
In his Comment,30 private respondent argues that with the denial by the CA of petitioner’s
motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration, the April 11, 2005 Decision of the CA
is already final and executory. Hence, he prays for the outright dismissal of the present petition.
As to the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, private respondent contends that
this case falls under the recognized exceptions to the said rule considering the purely legal issue
involved and the violation of his right to due process.
The assailed CA resolution upheld the general rule that the filing of a motion for extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration in the CA does not toll the fifteen-day period to appeal,
citing Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson.32 However, in previous cases we suspended this rule
in order to serve substantial justice.33
In Barnes v. Padilla,34 we exempted from the operation of the general rule the petitioner whose
motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. In the
Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated September 30, 2004,
we held that:
A suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case since the procedural infirmity was not
entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the petitioner. Petitioner’s counsel was
understandably confused with the absence of an explicit prohibition in the 2002 Internal Rules of
the Court of Appeals (IRCA) that the period of filing a motion for reconsideration is non-
extendible, which was expressly stated in the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals that
was in effect prior to the IRCA. The lawyer’s negligence without any participatory negligence on
the part of the petitioner is a sufficient reason to set aside the resolution of the CA.
More significantly, a careful study of the merits of the case and the lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, dictated the setting aside of the resolutions of the
CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 69573 and Branch 215 in Civil Case No. Q-99-37219, as both are
patently erroneous. x x x
Furthermore, the private respondents will not be unjustly prejudiced by the suspension of the
rules. What is subject of the appeal is only a question of law, involving the issue of forum-
shopping, and not a factual matter involving the merits of each party’s respective claims and
defenses relating to the enforcement of the MOA, wherein petitioner was given an option to
purchase the subject property. Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits
and not on mere technicalities. Every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity
for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of
technicalities.35 (Emphases supplied)
After a conscientious review, we hold that a suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case
since the delay of one week and two days in the filing of the motion for reconsideration was not
occasioned by negligence on the part of petitioner’s lawyer in charge of the case, the latter
having a valid excuse to immediately take leave of absence in view of her fathers’ sudden
demise. Additionally, the merits of the case impel us to adopt a more liberal stance. There is
likewise no showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. As we said in
Barnes v. Padilla:36
Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that
tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the
Rules of Court reflects this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so
pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared to be
final.
xxxx
Indeed, the emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest
opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of
technicalities.
While private respondent filed his answer to the Formal Charge issued by petitioner, he filed a
petition for certiorari in the CA questioning its validity and the order of preventive suspension,
even before the hearing proper was conducted. The CA found no jurisdictional ground to
invalidate the Formal Charge, and did not make any ruling on the issue of whether grave abuse
of discretion attended the imposition of the preventive suspension order. However, the CA
proceeded to review the merits of the administrative charge against private respondent,
concurring with petitioner’s finding that private respondent was remiss in his duties and
responsibilities but declaring private respondent liable for the lesser offense of Simple Neglect
and imposing on him the lower penalty therefor. The CA thus exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction
when it reviewed the alleged errors of the disciplining authority not only in finding a prima facie
case against the private respondent but also in determining his guilt. This despite the fact that the
rendition of the decision in Adm. Case No. 04-001 by the disciplining authority (GSIS) was
earlier brought to the attention of the CA.
A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. The special civil action for
certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of
procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court.37 As long as the court
acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will
amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,38 and not a petition for certiorari.
Considering that the CA did not declare any act of the petitioner to have been exercised without
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, the grant of relief to private
respondent by sentencing him to a lower offense with reduced penalty cannot be sustained.
Whether the private respondent may be held liable for Gross Neglect of Duty as stated in the
Formal Charge or for the lower offense of Simple Neglect of Duty should be properly threshed
out in Adm. Case No. 04-001 and thereafter in a timely appeal to the Civil Service Commission,
not in the certiorari proceedings before the CA seeking nullification of the Formal Charge and
preventive suspension order.
In the case of People v. Court of Appeals,39 accused-respondents were convicted by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 and accordingly sentenced with the
prescribed penalty of imprisonment. Instead of appealing the RTC judgment after the denial of
their motion for reconsideration, respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
CA, praying for the reversal of their conviction. The CA reviewed the trial court’s assessment of
the evidence on record, its findings of facts, and its conclusions based on the said findings. The
CA forthwith concluded that the said evidence was utterly insufficient on which to anchor a
judgment of conviction, and acquitted one of the respondents of the crime charged.
On appeal by the People to this Court, we reversed and set aside the CA’s decision ordering a re-
promulgation of the RTC decision against the two respondents and acquitting one respondent.
Addressing the issue of whether the CA acted in excess of its jurisdiction or without jurisdiction
when it acquitted one of the respondents in a petition for certiorari for the nullification of the trial
court’s decision, we held:
x x x. However, instead of appealing the decision by writ of error, the respondents filed their
petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the decision of the trial court on its merits. They
questioned their conviction and the penalty imposed on them, alleging that the prosecution failed
to prove their guilt for the crime charged, the evidence against them being merely hearsay and
based on mere inferences. In fine, the respondents alleged mere errors of judgment of the trial
court in their petition. It behooved the appellate court to have dismissed the petition, instead of
giving it due course and granting it.
The CA reviewed the trial court’s assessment of the evidence on record, its findings of facts, and
its conclusions based on the said findings. The CA forthwith concluded that the said evidence
was utterly insufficient on which to anchor a judgment of conviction, and acquitted respondent
Almuete of the crime charged.
The appellate court acted with grave abuse of its discretion when it ventured beyond the sphere
of its authority and arrogated unto itself, in the certiorari proceedings, the authority to review
perceived errors of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and discretion, which are
correctible only by appeal by writ of error. Consequently, the decision of the CA acquitting
respondent Almuete of the crime charged is a nullity. If a court is authorized by statute to
entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction
conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The
lack of statutory authority to make a particular judgment is akin to lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. In this case, the CA is authorized to entertain and resolve only errors of jurisdiction
and not errors of judgment.40 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, records showed that private respondent appealed the May 24, 2004 Decision of
petitioner finding him administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct and
imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, to the CSC. He also separately appealed the
preventive suspension order to the CSC. Later, however, private respondent filed a Manifestation
and Motion to Withdraw Appeal (both the preventive suspension and illegal dismissal cases)
with the CSC on May 25, 2005, without mentioning the April 11, 2005 Decision of the CA
modifying the Formal Charge and the aforesaid May 24, 2004 Decision of petitioner.1âwphi1
In a petition for certiorari, the public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the
legal power to determine the case; there is excess of jurisdiction where the respondent, being
clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law. There
is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary
or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.41
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though
within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect
to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the
general power in respect of it are wanting.42 The supervisory jurisdiction of the court to issue a
certiorari writ cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its
intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case. In the absence of a showing that
there is reason for the Court to annul the decision of the concerned tribunal or to substitute its
own judgment, it is not the office of the Court in a petition for certiorari to inquire into the
correctness of the assailed decision or resolution.43
Since petitioner is vested with the requisite legal authority to issue the Formal Charge, after due
investigation in accordance with existing rules and regulations of the Civil Service, and to
commence administrative proceedings against the private respondent,44 and in the absence of
grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of such powers, it behooved the CA to dismiss the
petition instead of giving it due course and granting it. In resolving the merits of the decision
rendered in the administrative case despite the pendency of private respondent’s appeal before
the CSC assailing the correctness of the same decision, the CA clearly exceeded its certiorari
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and the writ prayed for,
accordingly GRANTED. The Decision dated April 11, 2005 and Resolution dated July 20, 2005
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 82751 are hereby ANNULLED AND SET
ASIDE.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
