G.R. No. 181760 - ATTY. ANACLETO B. BUENA, JR., MNSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XVI, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO, COTABATO CITY, VS. DR. SANGCAD D. BENITO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17; Section 10, Rule 44; and Section l(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [33] The Regional Office, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a motion for reconsideration. The Associate Solicitor handling the case assumed responsibility for the non-filing of the memorandum, citing her alleged heavy workload as an excuse. She subsequently filed the required memorandum on behalf of the Regional Office. [34] In his comment on the motion for reconsideration, Dr. Benito argued that the delay of seven (7) months and 22 days in the filing of the memorandum was inexcusable negligence. [35] In the resolution [36] dated January 14, 2008, the Court of Appeals denied the Regional Office's motion for reconsideration. On April 1, 2008, the Regional Office filed a petition for review on certiorari [37] on which Dr. Benito commented. [38] A reply [39] to the comment was filed. Afterwards, this court considered this case submitted for deliberation in the resolution [40] dated December 1, 2009. On March 6, 2012, this court resolved to require the parties to move in the premises. [41] On June 19, 2012, this court clarified its March 6, 2012 resolution and required the parties to notify the court of new or intervening significant developments relevant to the case, if any. The parties were likewise required to signify their interest in resolving the legal matters in this case. [42] Dr. Benito filed the compliance [43] dated August 20, 2012, on which the Regional Office commented. [44] In the petition for review on certiorari for the Regional Office, the Associate Solicitor handling the case pleads for this court's "kind understanding on her human limitations as a government lawyer handling numerous cases." [45] She contends that "[the Regional Office] should not be made to bear the prejudice on account of [her] failure to submit the required memorandum." [46] The Regional Office argues that the trial court erred in taking cognizance of respondent Dr. Benito's petition for mandamus. A petition for mandamus, according to the Regional Office, is filed only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, appeal to the Civil Service Commission proper was still available. Worse, the petition for mandamus was allegedly filed as a substitute for a lost appeal. Consequently, the Regional Office's action on the attestation had already become final and executory, "bar[ring] . . . resort to any judicial action." [47] The trial court should not have entertained the petition for mandamus. [48] On the merits, petitioner Regional Director Buena maintains that the position of Assistant Schools Division Superintendent requires career executive service eligibility, citing Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 021011 [49] dated August 1, 2002. Since the resolution does not distinguish