[G.R. No. 152095. July 9, 2002]

BALATAYO-PISCOS vs. CSC

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 9 2002.

G.R. No. 152095 (Marilyn A. Balatayo-Piscos v. Civil Service Commission.)

This is a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s resolution, dated May 7, 2002, denying petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari for having been filed late in view of the denial of her motion for extension of time to file said petition. The motion for extension was denied for failure of petitioner to serve a copy of the motion on respondent Court of Appeals.

The facts are as follows: Petitioner Marilyn A. Balatayo-Piscos is Special Investigator I of. the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region XII in Cagayan de Oro. She was found guilty of dishonesty by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and ordered dismissed from the service and perpetually disqualified from holding public office and from taking any civil service examination. The CSC found that petitioner had asked another to take the Career Service Professional Examination on October 17, 1993 on her behalf. Based on the documents on record, particularly the picture seat plan for the examination and the personal data sheet of petitioner and the corresponding signatures appearing therein, the CSC held that there were glaring disparities between the person who applied for and took the examination and the real Marilyn A. .Balatayo-Piscos. It rejected the petitioner’s allegations that the disparity in the pictures could be attributed to the four (4) years that had passed since she took the examination and to the fact that when petitioner accomplished her personal data sheet on June 2, 1997, she was already married and had gained weight. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the CSC in its resolution, dated February 2, 2001, a copy of which was received by petitioner on February 27, 2001.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (G.R. No. 148047) in this Court, but it was dismissed on June 19, 2001 for disregard of the hierarchy of courts. A copy of this Court’s resolution was received by petitioner on July 4, 2001.

On July 19, 2001, petitioner filed in the Court of Appeals a motion to admit her petition for certiorari which she filed on August 18, 2001. In its resolution, dated July 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for being not the proper remedy. She filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a resolution, dated January 17, 2002 of the appeals court.

On February 8, 2002, petitioner filed in this Court, a motion for extension of thirty (30) days within which to file her petition for review on certiorari. However, her motion was denied on March 12, 2002 for failure of the petitioner to furnish the Court of Appeals with a copy of the said motion. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari which the Court denied on May 7, 2002 for having been filed late in view of the denial of petitioner’s earlier motion for extension. Hence, this motion for reconsideration.

The motion should be denied.

Rule 45, §4 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provides that a petition for review on certiorari may be filed “without impleading” the Court of Appeals. The reason for this is that the appeals court is only nominal party. But service of a copy of a petition for review or motions for extension to file such petition must nevertheless be made on the Court of Appeals in order to enable it to determine whether its decision or order, which is subject of such petition or motion, has become final and executory.

This, notwithstanding, this Court considered the petition filed in this case but found it to be without merit. Under Rule 43, §1, the appropriate remedy for seeking review from a ruling of the CSC is to file a petition for review. The petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals was not therefore the proper remedy and the appeals Court did not commit any reversible error in dismissing petitioner’s action on this ground. Nor can such petition be treated as a petition for review because it was filed beyond the fifteen (15) days for filing petitions for review provided for in Rule 45, §2. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

WHEREFORE, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court