MICHAELA A. LONTOC, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDE…

Lontoc versus Office of the President of the Philippines

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by Michaela A. Lontoc against the Office of the President of the Philippines, the Executive Secretary, and the other public respondents, to annul the decision and resolution of the Office of the President that affirmed her dismissal from the service. The case matters far less for the merits of her dismissal than for the lesson it teaches about procedure: it is the Supreme Court's reminder that the extraordinary writ of certiorari is a narrow, last-resort remedy, and that a party who ignores a plain, speedy, and adequate appeal in the ordinary course of law — here, an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 — will have her petition dismissed outright.

Procedural History

The petitioner's dismissal was investigated by the Board of Inquiry of the National Labor Relations Commission, which recommended her dismissal to the Office of the President. The Office of the President then issued a Decision dated May 12, 2014, and later a Resolution dated August 28, 2014, denying her motion for reconsideration. Rather than appeal, the petitioner went directly to the Supreme Court on November 17, 2014, filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul both issuances of the Office of the President. The Supreme Court, through the Third Division, resolved the petition directly and dismissed it.

Facts

The petitioner, Michaela A. Lontoc, was investigated by the Board of Inquiry of the National Labor Relations Commission, which recommended her dismissal to the Office of the President. Acting on that recommendation, the Office of the President issued a Decision dated May 12, 2014, in its case, and thereafter a Resolution dated August 28, 2014, disposing of her motion for reconsideration.

Aggrieved, the petitioner did not take an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Instead, on November 17, 2014, she filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, asking that the decision and resolution of the Office of the President be annulled.

Two defects attended her petition. First, she chose the wrong remedy, because an appeal to the Court of Appeals was available to her. Second, she failed to attach copies of pertinent documents, particularly those relating to the proceedings before the Board of Inquiry of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge a decision and resolution of the Office of the President, given that an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 is available.
• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for the petitioner's failure to attach copies of pertinent documents, particularly those relating to the proceedings before the Board of Inquiry of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President xxx.

This provision is decisive because it expressly lists the Office of the President among the quasi-judicial agencies whose final orders and resolutions are appealed to the Court of Appeals, not to the Supreme Court by certiorari.

Section 3 of Rule 43 provides:

SECTION 3. Where to appeal. — An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.

This fixes the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that the petitioner failed to use.

Section 1 of Rule 65 provides:

SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of [its or his] jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, xxx. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

This supplies both requirements the petitioner failed: the absence of any other remedy, and the attachment of the pertinent documents.

Section 3 of Rule 46 provides:

SECTION 3. 1 - The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners xxx xxx xxx. It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. xxx xxx xxx. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This makes the failure to attach the required documents a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was an improper remedy. Certiorari under Rule 65 requires, among others, that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. That third requisite was not complied with, because an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 was available. The Court held that appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions — which includes the Office of the President — may be taken to the Court of Appeals. The use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner failed to attach copies of pertinent documents, particularly those relating to the proceedings before the Board of Inquiry of the National Labor Relations Commission, which investigated her and recommended her dismissal. This defect was another ground for dismissal under Section 1 of Rule 65, in relation to Section 3 of Rule 46.

Doctrine

Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Where the law provides an appeal, certiorari is not available, and the erroneous choice of remedy is itself a ground for dismissal.

Under Section 1 of Rule 43, the final orders and resolutions of the Office of the President, as a quasi-judicial agency, are appealed to the Court of Appeals, whether the appeal raises questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions.

Failure to attach the certified true copy of the judgment or resolution subject of the petition and the pertinent documents, as required by Section 1 of Rule 65 in relation to Section 3 of Rule 46, is a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the decision and resolution of the Office of the President were left standing.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the Office of the President is a quasi-judicial agency whose final orders are appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, so certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of certiorari — especially the requirement that there be no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy — and the consequences of choosing the wrong mode of appeal and omitting pertinent documents.