Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
ALFREDO
O. ESTRERA, |
G.R.
No. 154235-36 |
|
(in
his Official Capacity as the |
|
|
Regional
Director, Philippine |
Present: |
|
Postal
Corporation, |
|
|
Postal
Region 10), |
|
|
Petitioner, |
PANGANIBAN,
C.J., Chairperson, |
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
|
|
- versus - |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
CALLEJO,
SR., and |
|
THE
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, |
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ. |
|
HON.
LEONARDO DEMECILLO, |
|
|
and
VENUS KAVOORI. |
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
|
|
|
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
This
resolves the petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolution[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 10, 2002 dismissing herein
petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67944[2]
and the Resolution[3] of
the CA dated June 17, 2002 which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
in the re-filed Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69407[4],
and found petitioner and his counsel guilty of forum shopping, sentencing each
of them to pay a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos, failing which, each of them is
to suffer imprisonment of three (3) months.
A thorough
scrutiny of the records reveals that the narration of the antecedent facts set
forth in the Order[5] of
the
THE ANTECEDENT:
Petitioner [herein private respondent Kavoori]
is employed with the Philippine Postal Corporation as POSTMAN II and assigned
at the Registry Delivery Section of the Cagayan de Oro City Post Office.
Respondent [herein petitioner] Alfredo Estrera is the Regional Director, Region 10 of the Philippine Postal Corporation.
Sometime in the second week of March 2001 BOMBO RADYO, DXIF, Cagayan de Oro City aired about the alleged pilferage and/or loss of PVAO checks and foreign mail matters and other alleged anomalies.
On
After investigation, the investigating team submitted the following recommendation.
“RECOMMENDATIONS:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES, it is strongly recommended that:
x x x x
x x x
POSTMAN VENUS KAVOORI be ADMINISTRATIVELY charged for DISHONESTY, GROSS VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS and/or NEGLIGENCE and/or LAXITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
POSTMAN VENUS KAVOORI be criminally charged for DISHONESTY (infidelity in the custody of official documents) and VIOLATIONS of the ANTI-GRAFT LAW
POSTMAN VENUS KAVOORI be reassigned/transferred/detailed immediately in a work area not directly handling mails, preferably at the APDM Office or Administrative and Finance Division, Philippine Postal Corporation.”
On
On same date also, respondent [herein petitioner] filed a formal charge against petitioner [herein private respondent].
xxx xxx xxx
On
Relative to the formal charge, petitioner [herein private respondent] filed a motion to quash based on the following grounds:
(a) that the complaint was not under oath;
(b) the complaint was only signed by Alfredo Estrera and not the Postmaster General;
(c) that the complaint should have been signed by the fact-finding body;
(d) that there was no preliminary investigation conducted before the filing of the charge;
(e) that the alleged affidavit of complaining witnesses were executed after respondent was investigated.
On June 14, 2001, respondent [herein petitioner] issued an Order denying the motion to quash – citing as ground, Sec. 16, par. 3, Rule II of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
xxx xxx xxx
On
Feeling no more other recourse, petitioner [herein private respondent] came to this court on prohibition, injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order and damages.[6] (Words in brackets, supplied)
x x x The complaint was not subscribed and sworn to by complainant and respondent Alfredo Estrera. It should have been sworn as he is not a Postmaster General. Sec. 1 (b) Rule II of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures of the Philippine Postal Corporation provides:
“Except when initiated by the Postmaster General, no complaint against the subordinate official or employees shall be given due course unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant.”
The complaint not being sworn, had no effect. The proceedings initially had are hereby invalidated including the creation of the fact-finding committee and the designation of the members thereof and their report as well as the evaluation report of the Chief Legal Staff relative to the findings of the fact finding committee and the designation of Lilia F. Eduarte as hearing officer and Rafael S. Suangco and Guiling Manalocan as prosecuting officers. Consequently, the injunction prayed for is hereby granted. Mrs. Lilia Eduarte, Rafael Suangco and Guiling Manalocan are hereby enjoined from proceeding with the hearing.
Respondent Alfredo Estrera may however, refile again the formal charge. In so doing he should observe the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures of the Philippine Postal Corporation and Circular No. 97-29.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Petitioner no longer filed a motion
for reconsideration of the foregoing RTC Order and proceeded to file a petition
for certiorari with the CA which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
67944.
On
However, after going over this petition, it was found out that petitioners failed to attach or incorporate the authority of Alfredo O. Estrera who signed the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping to sign for and in behalf of petitioner Lilia F. Eduarte in violation of Section 3, paragraph 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, hence, dismissible.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this petition is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
SO
ORDERED.[8]
Petitioner did not to file a motion
for reconsideration of the foregoing Resolution and instead filed another
petition for certiorari with the CA on
RESOLUTION
Upon examination of the present Petition for Certiorari, with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, and it appearing that:
a) The petition assails the Orders dated August 21, 2001 and October 24, 2001, granting a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, respectively, issued by respondent Judge Leonardo Demecillo of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 24, in Civil Case No. 2001-190, entitled: “Venus Kavoori, Petitioner versus Alfredo Estrera, et al., Respondents,” which were previously the subjects of another petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order earlier filed with this Court by Alfredo O. Estrera and Lilia F. Eduarte, and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67944, which was dismissed by the former Fifteenth Division on January 10, 2002. Except for the exclusion of Lilia F. Eduarte, the present petition, which is filed solely by Alfredo O. Estrera, appears to be exactly the same petition as the one docketed as CA-G.R. No. 67944 which, to repeat, has already been dismissed, without any motion for reconsideration having been filed, so that it cannot be revived as an entirely new petition;
b) Treated as a new petition, the instant petition appears to have been filed out of time, considering that the petitioner received a copy of the assailed Order dated October 24, 2001 on November 7, 2001, so that the last day of the 60-day period within which to file the same expired on January 6, 2002, whereas the instant petition was filed only on February 8, 2002 and, hence, already late by thirty-three (33) days;
c) Moreover, the petitioner did not first file with the respondent court a motion for the reconsideration of the assailed October 24, 2001, which is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari; and
d) Lastly, the certificate of non-forum shopping incorporated in the petition at bar is defective in that it does not disclose the earlier filing of a similar petition by herein petitioner Alfredo O. Estrera and Lilia F. Eduarte which was, however, dismissed, thereby violating Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in relation to Section 5, Rule 7 of the same Rules.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED OUTRIGHT, and the petitioner Alfredo O. Estrera and counsel Atty. Rene Artemio T. Pacana are both directed to show cause cause, within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof, why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court for engaging in forum shopping.
SO ORDERED.[9] (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner then filed his
Manifestation/Explanation[10]
and his Motion for Reconsideration[11]
both dated
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and the
petitioner Alfredo O. Estrera and counsel, Atty. Rene
Artemio T. Pacana, are
found guilty of forum shopping and EACH is sentenced to pay a fine of Fifteen
Thousand (P15,000.00) Pesos, failing in which, EACH is to suffer
imprisonment of three (3) months.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Hence, this petition for certiorari where petitioner alleges that:
The Honorable Court of Appeals:
A.)
FAILED SERIOUSLY
TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING INCORPORATED
TO THE PETITION DOCKETED AS CA-G.R. SP NO. 67944 WAS DEEMED IN SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 3, RULE 46 OF THE 1997
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. HENCE, GRAVELY
ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION.
B.)
SERIOUSLY FAILED
TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH
3, RULE 46 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO SECTION 5, RULE
7 OF THE SAME RULES SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
C.)
SERIOUSLY ERRED
IN FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOCKETED AS CA-G.R. SP NO. 69407 WAS A REVIVAL OF
THE PETITION DOCKETED AS CA-G.R. SP NO. 67944 WHICH IT EARLIER DISMISSED;
D.)
SERIOUSLY ERRED
IN TREATING THE PETITION DOCKETED AS CA-G.R. SP NO. 69407 AS A NEW PETITION AND
IN FINDING THAT THE SAME WAS FILED OUT OF TIME;
E.)
SERIOUSLY ERRED
IN FINDING HEREIN PETITIONER AND UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING
AND IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00)
EACH OR TO SUFFER IMPRISONMENT OF THREE (3) MONTHS IN CASE OF FAILURE THEREOF,
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW;
F.)
SERIOUSLY FAILED
TO APPRECIATE AND CONSIDER THE PRESENCE OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
JUSTIFIED HEREIN PETITIONER IN FILING THE PETITION WITHOUT FILING A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; AND
G.)
FAILING TO DECIDE
THE PETITION ON ITS MERITS.[13]
The
petition lacks merit.
Petitioner
must be reminded of the function of the remedy of certiorari. In People v. Court of Appeals,[14]
the Court expounded thus:
As
observed in Land Bank of the
As can be gleaned from the afore-quoted assignment of errors in the petition, the issues alleged are only possible errors of judgment, questioning the correctness of the CA’s rulings. Hence, since the issues involved do not affect the jurisdiction of the CA, the writ of certiorari cannot be availed of by petitioner.
Nevertheless,
a close scrutiny of the records reveals that the CA committed no errors.
Indeed, the
CA acted properly in dismissing CA-G.R. No. 67944 as the Section 3, Rule 46 of
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of petitioner to comply
with any of the requirements, such as the submission of a sworn certification
of non-forum shopping by all the petitioners, is sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition. Petitioner no
longer filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated
Although it
is true that the dismissal of the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP
No. 67944 was without prejudice and petitioner could have re-filed such
petition, such re-filing should still be done within the prescribed period
under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or not later
than sixty days from notice of the assailed Order of the RTC. The CA was correct in ruling that since
petitioner received said RTC Order dated
It is also
too late for petitioner to question the CA Resolution dated
Lastly, the
issue of the propriety of finding petitioner guilty of contempt for forum
shopping is also not within the province of a special action for certiorari. As stated in People v. Court of Appeals,[17]
issues merely questioning the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, not
the jurisdiction of the court rendering it, are not proper for a petition for certiorari.
Petitioner’s
remedy to question the CA’s finding of contempt should have been to appeal via
a petition for review on certiorari.
However, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, such petition should be filed 15 days after receipt of the CA
Resolution dated
The
axiomatic rule, as stated in Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday
Holdings Corporation,[18]
is that:
x x x Where appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. Basic is the rule that certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal.[19] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, since
appeal was available to petitioner, the present petition for certiorari
cannot be granted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Issued by the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals with Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole as ponente and concurred in by Associate Justices Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Sergio L. Pestaño.
[2] Entitled, “Alfredo O. Estrera, Lilia F. Eduarte versus Hon. Leonardo Demecillo and Venus Kavoori”.
[3] Issued by the CA Former Fourteenth Division with Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. as ponente with concurrence of Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
[4] Entitled, “Alfredo O. Estrera versus Hon. Leonardo Demecillo and Venus Kavoori”.
[5] Rollo, pp. 256 -263.
[6] Rollo, pp. 257- 259.
[7] Rollo, p. 263.
[8] Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[9] CA Rollo for CA-G.R. SP No. 69407, pp. 469-470.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[14] G.R. No. 142051,
[15]
[16] See Registry Return Receipt, CA rollo for CA-G.R. SP No. 67944, at the back of p. 477.
[17] Supra. See note 11.
[18] G.R. No. 156067,
[19]