G.R. No. 150792 - HON. REMEDIOS L. PETILLA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER THIRTEENTH DIVISION), CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND JERIEL L. ARDIENTE. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Orders issued by Governor Remedios L. Petilla, Province of Leyte, reassigning Jeriel L. Ardiente are hereby declared void. Accordingly, Governor Petilla is hereby directed to restore Ardiente to his former workstation at the Hilongos District Hospital, Hilongos, Leyte. [8] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 00-0441. [9] The CSC [10] denied the motion for lack of merit in its Resolution No. 01-0726 dated 2 April 2001. [11] Subsequently, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review dated 29 May 2001 to question CSC Resolutions Nos. 00-0441 and 01-0726. Petitioner attached to her motion for extension the joint affidavit of Celia Maria dela Cruz (Celia) and Ruth A. Loreto (Ruth). [12] At the time, Celia was the Executive Assistant while Ruth was the Receiving Clerk of the Governors Office. In their joint affidavit, Ruth stated that she received CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 on 24 April 2001 and forwarded the same to Celia on the same date. Celia did not give CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 to petitioner because the latter was then in the west coast of Leyte attending to election matters. Meanwhile, Celia kept CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 inside the offices filing cabinet. It was only on 29 May 2001 that Celia and Ruth gave CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 to petitioner. On 31 May 2001, without awaiting the Court of Appeals resolution of the motion for extension, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review assailing CSC Resolutions Nos. 00-0441 and 01-0726, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65192. On 22 June 2001, the Court of Appeals issued the First Resolution denying due course and dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 65192 for petitioners failure to comply with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. On 19 September 2001, respondent filed a Motion for Execution [13] of CSC Resolution No. 00-0441 with the Court of Appeals to which petitioner filed a Comment on 21 October 2001. On 12 October 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the First Resolution attaching the certified true copies of the documents enumerated in the First Resolution. The appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration in the Second Resolution dated 29 October 2001. Hence, this petition. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The First Resolution denied due course and dismissed petitioners petition for review for failure to append clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the following: (a) CSC Resolution No. 00-0441 declaring respondents transfer and reassignment as void; (b) Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 00-0441; (c) Respondents letter-protest with the CSC, Region 8 Office, protesting his reassignments; and (d) Petitioners answer, if any, to respondents letter-protest. The Court of Appeals stated that this failure violates Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court which provides: SEC