G.R. No. 134441 - INDALICIO P. CONTI, VS. HON. COURT OFAPPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, Indalicio P. Conti is hereby found guilty of Dishonesty. Accordingly, he is meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties. CSC-NCR, however, is thus directed to recall the approval of said appointment of Conti as Professor I, Polytechnic University of the Philippines." [4] On 13 December 1995, Conti moved for a reconsideration of the CSC resolution. Several letters were thereafter sent by Conti to CSC calling its attention to his pending motion for reconsideration. On 13 June 1995, Conti filed a formal motion for the resolution of his plea for reconsideration. Still, the CSC had not acted. On 23 February 1998, Conti finally filed with this Court a petition for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus , docketed G.R. No. 132531, in which he contended that - "x x x (t)he CSC acted without jurisdiction when it heard, tried, and decided the instant case as a court of origin; "x x x (t)he CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it found the petitioner guilty of dishonesty; and "x x x (t)he CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it has not acted for more than a year on the petitioner's motion for reconsideration/new trial." [5] In a resolution, dated 03 March 1998, the Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. In its now challenged resolution, the appellate court dismissed the petition for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus for having been filed out of time, thusly: "For having been filed out of time, this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, which was originally filed with but referred to this Court by the Honorable Supreme Court, must have to be DENIED DUE COURSE. "As no less admitted in the petition itself (at page one thereof), petitioner received copy of the assailed Resolution of the respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) on `06 December 1995.' Under Supreme Court (SC) Revised Circular No. 1-91, as amended by SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, now incorporated in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from judgments, final orders or resolutions or quasi-judicial agencies, like the Civil Service Commission, shall be taken to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the assailed judgment, order or resolution (Mateo vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 284 [1995] ). "With the very admission by the petitioner himself that copy of the challenged CSC Resolution was received by him way back on December 6, 1995, it need no belaboring to understand that the present petition which was filed only on February 23, 1996, [6] was belatedly filed. In fact, it was filed almost three (3) months passed its due date. "We may add that the mode of appeal resorted to - certiorari, instead of a petition for review - makes the recourse even doubly dismissible." [7] Conti sought reconsideration but it was to no avail; hence, t