G.R. No. 180853 - MANICAM M. BACSASAR, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal of Manicam M. Bacsasar is hereby DISMISSED . Accordingly, the Decision dated February 9, 2004 of the CSC-ARMM, finding her guilty of Dishonesty for which she was meted out a penalty of dismissal from service including the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, is AFFIRMED . [7] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 062250 [8] dated December 19, 2006. Petitioner received CSC Resolution 062250 on January 8, 2007. On January 23, 2007, she requested a thirty day-extension of time, or until February 22, 2007, to file a petition for review. Petitioner, however, failed to file the intended petition within the extended period. [9] On February 27, 2007, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit (the attached Petition). [10] On June 26, 2007, the CA dismissed the petition for having been tardily filed and for lack of merit. It held that the failure of the petitioner to file the intended petition for review within the extended period rendered the CSC decision final and executory. Accordingly, it had been divested of jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The CA also affirmed the CSC finding that there is substantial evidence on record to establish petitioner's culpability. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but the CA denied it on October 2, 2007. Hence, this recourse by petitioner theorizing that: THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS DATED JUNE 26, 2007 AND OCTOBER 2, 2007 WERE ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF LAW OR (sic) DUE PROCESS; THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2004 OF THE CSC-ARMM REGIONAL DIRECTOR FINDING PETITIONER MANICAM M. BACSASAR GUILTY OF DISHONESTY; THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE FORMAL CHARGE AGAINST THE PETITIONER. [11] We deny the petition. Admittedly, petitioner received CSC Resolution No. 062250 dated December 19, 2006 on January 8, 2007. However, she filed her appeal with the CA only on February 27, 2007. [12] Clearly, her petition for review with the CA was tardily filed. The CSC resolutions, therefore, attained finality. As we explained in Emerlinda S. Talento v. Hon. Remegio M. Escalada, Jr. : [13] The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory. Failure to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory and beyond the power of the Court's review. Jurisprudence mandates that when a decision becomes final and executory, it becomes valid and binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest. Such decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may have been. Accordingly, the CA correctly dismissed the petition as it no longer had any jurisdiction to alter or nullify the CSC resolutions. But, if only to show that the petition is doo