Indoyon, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be availed of when the proper remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court reiterated that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic potion that automatically compels the setting aside of technical rules, especially when a litigant shows a predilection for disregarding the Rules.

Petitioner Ebrencio F. Indoyon, Jr. was the municipal treasurer of the Municipality of Lingig, Surigao del Sur, with Salary Grade 24. He faced administrative proceedings before two separate bodies: the Bureau of Local Government Finance, Department of Finance (BLGF-DOF) and the Office of the Ombudsman. The BLGF-DOF found him guilty of simple neglect of duty, while the Ombudsman found him guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct, imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service.

Petitioner Ebrencio F. Indoyon, Jr. was the municipal treasurer of the Municipality of Lingig, Surigao del Sur, with Salary Grade 24. On 8 August 2005, upon examination of his cash and accounts covering the period 22 June 2005 to 8 August 2005, the Commission on Audit (COA), through State Auditor III Lino A. Bautista, discovered that petitioner had incurred a cash shortage in the amount of ₱1,222,648.42. In an undated letter, Auditor Bautista demanded the immediate production of the missing funds and the submission of a written explanation of the shortage.

On 19 September 2005, petitioner replied with a letter addressed to the provincial auditor of Surigao del Sur, admitting that he had personally used ₱652,000 to put up a project to supplement his income, and that he had allowed other municipal officials and employees to use as cash advances his collections as municipal treasurer. On 15 March 2006, a Formal Charge for Violation of COA Rules and Regulations was filed against petitioner before the Bureau of Local Government Finance, Department of Finance (BLGF-DOF), CARAGA Administrative Region, Butuan City, docketed as ADM Case No. BLGF-08-0108. Meanwhile, a letter-complaint dated 6 December 2006 was sent by the Regional Legal and Adjudication-Commission on Audit to the Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, recommending the filing of a criminal case for malversation and an administrative case for dishonesty and grave misconduct against petitioner.

In its Decision dated 2 October 2008, the BLGF-DOF found petitioner guilty of "simple neglect of duty" and imposed the maximum penalty of six months suspension from the service without pay. On 27 November 2008, petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration seeking a modification of the penalty from suspension to a fine. The request was partially granted in a Resolution dated 2 February 2009, imposing instead a fine equivalent to the six-month salary of petitioner. Meanwhile, on 30 April 2008, the Ombudsman rendered a Decision in Case No. OMB-M-A-07-024-A finding petitioner guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service.

On 13 March 2009, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Decision, alleging that jurisdiction over the same administrative complaint had first been acquired by the BLGF-DOF. Petitioner alleged that the two administrative cases were one and the same because of their identity of issues, facts, and parties. The Ombudsman, however, maintained that the two cases were not identical and denied the motion. To enjoin the implementation of the Ombudsman's Decision, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 43 with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 02855-MIN. In a Resolution dated 5 June 2009, the Petition was dismissed for several technical infirmities. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, praying for the relaxation of the procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice, was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated 16 July 2010. In the meantime, on 24 February 2010, the BLGF-DOF sent a letter directing the implementation of the Ombudsman's Decision dismissing petitioner from the service. Hence, the instant Petition before the Supreme Court.

• Substantial Justice: Petitioner invoked the liberality of the Court and considerations of substantial justice in seeking to overturn the CA Resolutions, praying for the relaxation of the procedural rules.
• Jurisdiction: Petitioner alleged that the two administrative cases were one and the same because of their identity of issues, facts, and parties, and that jurisdiction over the same administrative complaint had first been acquired by the BLGF-DOF.

• Technical Infirmities: The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that it suffered from several technical infirmities that violated various circulars and issuances of the Supreme Court, including the lack of an Affidavit of Service, the impleading of the Ombudsman as nominal party, and the failure to indicate the Court of Origin, Case Number, and Title of the action in the caption.
• Wrong Remedy: The Solicitor General filed a Comment, and the Court ultimately found that petitioner availed himself of the wrong remedy by filing a Rule 65 petition instead of a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.

• Propriety of Rule 65 Remedy: Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's Rule 43 Petition for Review on Certiorari on the ground of noncompliance with the Rules of Court and Supreme Court circulars.

• Propriety of Rule 65 Remedy: No. The Petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the proper remedy to question the CA's judgment, final order, or resolution is a petition for review on certiorari, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken by a wrong or inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal.

• Propriety of Rule 65 Remedy: The Court held that by filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner clearly availed himself of the wrong remedy. Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken to the Court or to the CA by a wrong or inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. The Court cited Ybanez vs. Court of Appeals to emphasize that the Court cannot tolerate ignorance of the law on appeals, and that paragraph 4(e) of Supreme Court Circular 2-90 specifically warns litigants' counsels to follow to the letter the requisites prescribed by law on appeals. The Court noted that petitioner's disregard for the rules was even more glaring considering his previous grave indifference to technical rules before the CA.

The Court further ruled that even if it were to be liberal and overlook Circular 2-90, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in dismissing the petition for technical infirmities. A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative writ that is never demandable as a matter of right. To warrant its issuance, the abuse of discretion must have been so gross or grave, as when there was such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or the exercise of power was done in an arbitrary or despotic manner. The CA was simply implementing the rules set forth by the Court, and petitioner did not question the proper application of the technical rules by the CA, merely invoking their liberal application.

The Court also noted that for a proper invocation of certiorari under Rule 65, one of the essential requisites is that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court suspected that petitioner's failure to avail himself of the Rule 45 remedy within the reglementary period of 15 days was the reason he filed the special civil action, which provides for a longer period of 60 days. The instant Petition was filed 35 days after notice, by which time petitioner had lost his appeal under Rule 45. Citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, the Court stressed that certiorari cannot be allowed when a party fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy; certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.

• Certiorari as a Substitute for Lost Appeal — A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy; it is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court applied this doctrine in dismissing the petition, noting that petitioner had lost his appeal under Rule 45 by filing the Rule 65 petition 35 days after notice.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — To warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must have been so gross or grave, as when there was such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or the exercise of power was done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. The abuse must have been committed in a manner so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA, which was simply implementing the rules.

• Substantial Justice Not a Magic Potion — The invocation of substantial justice is not a magic potion that will automatically compel the Court to set aside technical rules. This principle is especially true when a litigant shows a predilection for utterly disregarding the Rules. The policy of liberal construction may be invoked only in situations in which there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but not when the application of the policy results in the utter disregard of procedural rules.

• "We reiterate that under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, the filing of an improper remedy of special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, when the proper remedy should have been to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, merits the outright dismissal of a Petition such as this one." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi: the wrong remedy under Rule 65 warrants outright dismissal.

• "We remind petitioner, as we have consistently reminded countless other litigants, that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic potion that will automatically compel this Court to set aside technical rules." — This passage articulates the Court's rejection of the substantial justice argument as a basis for disregarding procedural rules.

• "Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal." — This concise statement encapsulates the controlling doctrine that a party who fails to appeal within the reglementary period cannot use certiorari to revive the lost remedy.

• Ybanez vs. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 643 (1996) — Cited for the principle that the Court cannot tolerate ignorance of the law on appeals and has reproached litigants who seek to delegate to the Court the task of determining under which rule their petitions should fall.

• Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92 (2000) — Cited for the rule that a Rule 65 petition should be dismissed when the proper remedy is an appeal under Rule 45, and that certiorari cannot be allowed when a party fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy.

• Villaran vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, G.R. No. 160882, 7 March 2012 — Cited for the principle that an appeal taken by a wrong or inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal under Supreme Court Circular 2-90.

• Roquero vs. The Chancellor of UP-Manila, G.R. No. 181851, 9 March 2010, 614 SCRA 723 — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as a ground for the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

• Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provides that the proper remedy to question the CA's judgment, final order, or resolution is a petition for review on certiorari, which must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides for the special civil action for certiorari, which lies only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

• Supreme Court Circular 2-90 — Provides that an appeal taken to the Court or to the CA by a wrong or inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. Paragraph 4(e) thereof imposes a duty on counsel to follow scrupulously the requisites for appeal prescribed by law.

• Section 6, Rule 43, Rules of Court — Requires that the petition for review shall state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents.

• Section 13, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Requires proof of service, consisting of a written admission of the party served, the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place, and manner of service.

• Supreme Court Revised Circular Nos. 1-88 and 19-91 — Require that a petition or motion for extension be dismissed or denied outright if there is no proof of service attached to the petition or motion when filed.

• Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 — Requires that the caption of the petition or complaint include the docket number of the case in the lower court or quasi-judicial agency whose order or judgment is sought to be reviewed, and provides that any violation thereof shall be a cause for summary dismissal.

Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concurred. Perez, J., was on official leave.