Case Title : CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and BUREAU OF INTERNAL and thereafter both the OSG and the

fter both the OSG and the CSC would be called upon to proffer for the BIR and required it to manifest whether or not it was adopting the
REVENUE, petitioners, vs. NIMFA P. ASENSI, respondent.Case Nature : their respective legal positions. Had it been due to personal antipathy between
previously filed petition. Still, there are manifest differences between that case
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a resolution of the Supreme Court. the coordinating personnel of the OSG and the CSC, more commodious and the present petition. The Court noted in Commissioner of Internal
Syllabi Class : Actions|Appeals|Due Process|Judgments|Office the Solicitor arrangements could have been made without having need to traverse the law. Revenue that the dismissal of the petition “could have lasting effect on
General|Statutory Construction|Civil Service Commission|Civility and government tax revenues, the lifeblood of the state.” Nothing quite as urgent
Indeed, by filing the Petition for Certiorari—an erroneous mode of review it
Courtesy|Technicalities and Procedural Rules may be added through the Office of Legal Affairs and not the OSG—the CSC is posed in this petition. The Court also pointed out that the “Commissioner of
Syllabi: acted contrary to law, jurisprudence, and even its own Memorandum of Internal Revenue, seeking clarification on the issue of legal representation,
1. Actions; Office the Solicitor General; Actions filed in the name of the Agreement. As the Court previously noted, the predicament of the CSC hardly[labored] and acted in good faith.” We are hard-pressed to make a similar
Republic of the Philippines, including actions filed in the name of agencies or evokes sympathy, it not only having supplied the noose by which it was hung,
finding of good faith on the part of the CSC. It had earlier sought the
instrumentalities of the Republic, if not initiated by the Solicitor General will be but tying the knot as well. representation of the OSG, even citing legal basis for such representation to
summarily dismissed.- the Court of Appeals. Then suddenly, without sufficient warning or notice, the
The Court has explicitly declared that since only the Solicitor General can 4. Actions; Office the Solicitor General; Civil Service CSC started filing pleadings on its own without the consent or even knowledge
bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, “actions Commission; Admittedly, there are “exceptions” to the general rule on the of its legal counsel, the OSG. Lamentably, there is a badge of uncouthness
filed in the name of the Republic of the Philippines if not initiated by the OSG’s representation of the government and its instrumentalities, such as attending these actions taken by the CSC vis-à-vis the OSG which the Court
Solicitor General will be summarily dismissed.” The rule has been extended when the government office is adversely affected by the contrary position could not sanction.
to include actions filed in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the taken by the OSG, and when the Solicitor General deputizes legal officers of
Republic such as the CSC. There is clearly all the justification in precedent for government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist him and to 6. Appeals; Technicalities and Procedural Rules; Strict compliance with
the Court to have dismissed the petition. appear or represent the Government in cases involving their respective the mandatory rules of procedure is the established norm and any relaxation
offices.- from that standard could only be an exception.-
2. Actions; Office the Solicitor General; Statutory Construction; Where Admittedly, there are “exceptions” to the general rule on the OSG’s The OSG now prays that the Motion for Reconsideration be granted,
there is a particular or special provision and a general provision in the same representation of the government and its instrumentalities. The first, “considering the gravity of the offense lodged against [Asensi].” Yet there is
statute and the latter in its most comprehensive sense would overrule the enunciated in Orbos v. CSC, was already adverted to in our prior Resolution, hardly any vibrancy in the OSG’s arguments, which blandly invokes the
former, the particular or special provision must be operative and the general and may only be invoked when the government office is adversely affected by suspension of the Rules “in the higher interest of justice,” a pro forma claim if
provision must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it the contrary position taken by the OSG. But as stated earlier, such is not the ever there was one. The CSC also similarly invokes the suspension of
may properly apply.- case in the present petition since both the OSG and the CSC apparently seek procedural rules, and also claims that Asensi “should not escape
On its face, the provision seems to sanction the representation made by the the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court alluded to administrative liability on mere technicality,” considering that she is a public
Office of Legal Affairs for the CSC before this Court. But this provision has to another exception in CDA v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries officer. Strict compliance with the mandatory rules of procedure is the
be qualified by the earlier quoted provision (Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Cooperative when it pointed out that under Section 35(8), Chapter 12, Title III, established norm and any relaxation from that standard could only be an
Book IV) of the same Administrative Code pertaining to the mandate of the Book IV of the Administrative Code, the Solicitor General, in providing legal exception. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking
Office of the Solicitor General, to “represent the Government and its officers representation for the government, is empowered to “deputize legal officers of on the policy of liberal construction. We are not convinced that a relaxation of
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the Solicitor the rules is authorized in this case based on the merits.
in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their
officer thereof.” Clearly, Section 35 finds more specific application in this case respective offices, brought before the courts and exercise supervision and 7. Due Process; A finding of guilt, based on documents not included in the
than Section 16(3), as the former pointedly governs the procedure pertinent control over such legal officers with respect to such cases.” While this charge sheet, is noxious to due process as it violates the right to be informed
to the representation of “the Government and its officers in the Supreme provision would authorize the CSC’s Office of Legal Affairs to represent the of the charges against a person.-
Court,” “in all civil actions and special proceedings.” Section 35 is also CSC, it provides for conditions precedent which we must construe strictly, they The argument posed by the CSC in its Petition is even dangerous and noxious
consistent with precedents and the established rule that it is the Solicitor being exceptions to the general rule. First, there must be an express to constitutional due process. The CSC considers it “grave abuse of
General who has the primary responsibility to appear for the government in authorization by the Office of the Solicitor General, naming therein the legal discretion” on the part of the Court of Appeals in failing to consider purported
appellate proceedings. Where there is a particular or special provision and a officers who are being deputized. Second, the cases must involve the misrepresentations in at least nine of Asensi’s Personal Data Sheets, most of
general provision in the same statute and the latter in its most comprehensive respective offices of the deputized legal officers. And finally, despite such which were executed before 1997. However, as the Court of Appeals pointed
sense would overrule the former, the particular or special provision must be deputization, the OSG should retain supervision and control over such legal out, the charge sheet lodged by the CSC against Asensi only mentioned her
operative and the general provision must be taken to affect only the other parts officers with respect to the cases. personal data sheet dated 11 April 1997. Considering that Asensi was being
of the statute to which it may properly apply. In this way, all the provisions are charged with Falsification, along with Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, the
given effect. 5. Actions; Office the Solicitor General; Civil Service charge sheet should specify which documents the respondent is being
Commission; Civility and Courtesy; Lamentably, there is a badge of charged as having falsified. A finding of guilt, based on documents not
3. Actions; Office the Solicitor General; Civil Service Commission; The uncouthness attending the actions taken by the CSC vis-à-vis the OSG which included in the charge sheet, which the CSC would have this Court
predicament of the CSC hardly evokes sympathy, it not only having supplied the Court could not sanction.- pronounce, is noxious to due process as it violates the right to be informed of
the noose by which it was hung, but tying the knot as well.- There is our course of action in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La the charges against a person. Without such specific information relating to the
It is unclear why the CSC, after having properly called upon representation by Suerte, which is not really an exception to the rule, but which could serve as documents which she allegedly falsified, Asensi would be at a loss to prepare
the OSG, suddenly became allergic to the assistance of its duly authorized possible basis for a more favorable result to the CSC. There, notwithstanding her defense. As correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, administrative
legal counsel. If it was because the OSG adopted a position adverse from that the improper filing of the petition by the legal officers of the BIR, the Court, proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental principles such as
of the CSC, then there should have been first a manifestation to that effect rather than dismissing the petition directed the OSG to enter its appearance the right to due process in investigation and hearings. This especially holds
true for the CSC, which as an instrumentality of the government, is
circumscribed by, and accordingly expected to comply with, the Bill of Rights.
8. Judgments; It is perhaps unusual that a resolution denying a motion for
reconsideration is lengthier than the assailed decision or resolution, but it is
useful for the Court to be emphatic on the matter of the representation of the
CSC by its Office of Legal Affairs, if only to serve warning that such error
should never happen again.-
The Court finds no compelling reason to reverse its earlier Resolution. It is
perhaps unusual that a resolution denying a motion for reconsideration is
lengthier than the assailed decision or resolution, such as is in this case. But
it is useful for the Court to be emphatic on the matter of the representation of
the CSC by its Office of Legal Affairs, if only to serve warning that such error
should never happen again.
Division: EN BANC
Docket Number: G.R. No. 160657
Counsel: Karin Litz P. Zema, Dennis R. Gascon
Ponente: TINGA
Dispositive Portion:
The Motion for Reconsideration dated 6 August 2004 filed by petitioner Civil
Service Commission is DENIED with FINALTY. No costs.
G.R. No. 160657 June 30, 2004
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner,
vs.
NIMFA P. ASENSI, respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:
Respondent Nimfa Asensi was ordered dismissed by petitioner Civil Service
Commission ("CSC") from her position as Revenue District Officer of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue in Lucena City. Her dismissal came after an
investigation revealed that she had falsified entries in her Personal Data Sheet
(PDS) relative to her educational background. 1 Aggrieved, respondent filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the CSC Resolution
ordering her dismissal.
On 9 July 2003, the Court of Appeals’ Fourth Division promulgated a D E C I
S I O N2 holding that the dismissal of respondent was not warranted, and
setting aside the assailed resolution of the CSC.3 Acting upon the CSC’s
motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals denied it in a R E S O L U T and not by special civil action for certiorari. 15 Neither is certiorari warranted if
I O N dated 29 October 2003. there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.16 The remedy to the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals in this case
17
The Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG") received a copy of the 29 October is a petition for review under Rule 45.
2003 Resolution on 7 November 2003. Having until 22 November 2003 to file
a petition for review on certiorari before this Court, on 21 November 2003, the The OSG, counsel of record for the CSC, well understood the proper
OSG filed a motion for extension until 22 December 2003 to file the petition procedure for appeal, and undertook the initiatory step for a petition for review
for review.4 This Court granted the OSG’s motion in a Resolution dated 9 by filing a Motion for Extension of Time to file such petition.18 It is unclear if
December 2003.5 the CSC had known about the OSG’s Motion, though the answer to that
question does not really matter to the disposition of this case. The Court
Apparently, the CSC remained in the dark as to the legal moves made by its granted the OSG’s Motion, allowing the OSG to file its Petition until 22
counsel, the OSG. On 25 November 2003, the CSC, filed a Manifestation To December 2003. The OSG, being the designated legal representative of the
File Its Own Petition for Review.6 This Manifestation was signed by three Government and its instrumentalities, has a long history of association with
lawyers from the Office of Legal Affairs of the CSC.7 this Court and acquired in the process an awesome wealth of experience in
appellate practice. Had the CSC relied on its counsel’s expertise, it would
have been spared of the needless burden of salvaging its petition from outright
On 27 November 2003, the CSC, through its Office of Legal Affairs, filed with dismissal and, of course, the inevitable ignominy which such dismissal entails.
this Court a Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65, assailing the 9 July
2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which it received on 30 July 2003.8 In
a Resolution dated 13 January 2004, the Court, without giving due course to Instead, the CSC, using its own lawyers, filed the wrong mode of review. The
the petition, directed the respondent to file her comment thereon. 9 CSC’s assertion as to the capacity of its Office of Legal Affairs to appear
before this Court is of dubious legal basis. A similar issue was raised, albeit
pertaining to the legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in the
The OSG was surprised by the twin legal moves taken by the CSC without Court’s R E S O L U T I O N in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Suerte
their consent and participation. On 22 December 2003, the OSG filed Cigar and Cigarette Factory.19 The BIR therein asserted that on the basis of
a Manifestation and Motion stating that considering the CSC’s manifested Section 220 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997, its legal officers were allowed to
intention to file its own petition, the OSG had no recourse but to withdraw its institute civil and criminal actions and proceedings in behalf of the
21 November 2003 Motion for Extension and allow the CSC to actively pursue government. The Court disagreed, saying that it is the Solicitor General who
its own case.10 We required the CSC to comment on the OSG’s Manifestation has the primary responsibility to appear for the government in appellate
and Motion.11 In their Comment filed on 27 April 2004, the CSC asserted that proceedings,20 it being the principal law officer and legal defender of the
Under Section 16 (3), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the government.21 The Court also cited with approval, the exception enunciated
Administrative Code of 1987, its Office for Legal Affairs was authorized to in Orbos v. Civil Service Commission22 which is that the government office
represent the CSC "before any Court or tribunal".12 may appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or representative only
if it is adversely affected by the contrary position taken by the OSG. Herein,
In the meantime, respondent filed her Comment on the Petition for there is no indication that the OSG has adopted a position contrary to that of
Certiorari.13 She prayed for the immediate dismissal of the petition, as the the CSC; hence, appearance by the CSC on its own behalf would not be
proper remedy for the CSC was not the special civil action for certiorari under warranted.
Rule 65, but a petition for review under Rule 45. Moreover, since the period
for filing a petition for review had already elapsed, according to the Yet, even if the CSC Office of Legal Affairs were allowed to represent the CSC
respondent, the CSC had deliberately resorted to the special civil action. in this petition, still the dismissal of the case would still be warranted in view
of the erroneous mode by which the assailed Court of Appeals D E C I S I O
We agree with the respondent. So, we dismiss the petition. There is little need N was elevated. Moreover, the OSG, which had been given until 22 December
to elaborate on the reasons, which are after all, elementary in procedural law. 2003 to file the petition for review, did not file any such petition, interposing
The special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without instead the Manifestation and Motion.23 This Manifestation, of course, did not
jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.14 The stay the period for filing the petition for review. Thus, such period has already
grave abuse of discretion imputed to the Court of Appeals was its finding that elapsed for good. On account of the lapse of the period, there is no need for
respondent was not guilty of the charges against her, a charge that if true, us to pass upon the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion.
would only constitute an error in law. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors
of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or We are hardly sympathetic to the CSC’s predicament. Not only did it supply
conclusions of the lower court. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, the noose by which it was hung, it also tied the knot. Had the CSC been in
any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to consultation with its counsel of record, the petition could have been taken
nothing more than errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal
 12
without incident. Instead, without seeking the heed of sager minds, it went off Rollo, p. 92.
by its lonesome into high noon, ill-equipped. There is nothing left to do but
pronounce the demise of the case. 13 Id. at 73-84.

The Petition is DISMISSED. No costs. 14 See Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED. 15
Sahali v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134169, 2 February 2000, 324
SCRA 510.
Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, 16 Supra, note 14.
Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
17 See Section 1, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

18 Supra note 4.
Footnotes
19 G.R. No. 144942, 4 July 2002, 384 SCRA 117.
1In particular, respondent was charged with having stated in her 20
1997 Personal Data Sheet that she had earned a degree of Bachelor Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Suerte Cigar and
of Science and Business Administration in 1973, when in fact, she Cigarette Factory, Supra, citing Republic v. Register of Deeds of
had earned her Bachelor of Science in Commerce degree only in Quezon, 244 SCRA 537 (1995), and CIR v. S.C. Johnson and Son,
1985. See Rollo, p. 30. Inc., 309 SCRA 87 (1999).

21
2Penned by Justice Danilo B. Pine, and concurred in by Justices Supra, note 19 at 119.
Godardo A. Jacinto and Renato C. Dacudao.
22 G.R. No. 92561, 12 September 1990, 189 SCRA 459.
3Rollo, pp. 26-31. The Court of Appeals concluded that respondent
was guilty only of carelessness in misstating her college attainment, 23 Supra note 10.
but not of falsification.

4 Rollo, pp. 2-3.

5 Id. at 6.

6 Id. at 7-8.

7Namely Attys. Karin Litz P. Zerna, Alexis Palomar-Tabino, and Ma.

Emelina A. De Vera.

8 Rollo, pp. 13-24.

9 Id. at 36.

10 Id. at 37-38.

11 In a Resolution dated 10 February 2004. Rollo, p. 64.