RODOLFO R.

MAHINAY, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, respondents.

Facts:

The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), charged its employee, Rodolfo R. Mahinay, for receiving unofficial fees
amounting to P 300 from FRITZ Logistics Phils. Inc. and in consideration of the latter's rendering escort service to FRITZ' trucks
from Baguio City to Manila and vice-versa, and whose presence during such escort service is to help lessen delay in the scheduled
trip of FRITZ' cargo by police checkpoints and unscrupulous traffic enforcers encountered along the way, particularly during
implementation of the truck ban policy in Metro Manila The said conduct of petitioner was alleged to be in violation of Sec. 46 (b) (9),
Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 in relation to Sec. 22 (i), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil
Service Rules and Regulations.

Mahinay admitted receiving the fees from Fritz but contends his services was only for the purpose of ensuring that the
goods will be intact and safely and completely delivered to their destinations, and that the amount received is as traveling and meal
allowance in addition to official fee of P400 net for service rendered. Thereafter, the Special Prosecutor presented his line witness,
Mr. Jerry H. Stehmeier who testified that the "extra amount" of P300 was in fact actually received by petitioner, who exacted the
same from FRITZ, for escorting their trucks.

The PEZA rendered a decision finding Mahinay guilty of the offense charged. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied by the PEZA. Upon appeal, he CSC upheld the PEZA's decision, but modified the penalty of forced resignation to dismissal
from the service in accordance. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC. Petitioner received a copy of the
resolution on August 11, 2000.

On September 12, 2000, petitioner filed with the CA a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Certiorari,
requesting for a period of up to November 10, 2000 within which to file his petition. The CA denied the said motion for being the
wrong mode of appeal and for being filed out of time. The CA stated that since the assailed Resolution was rendered by a quasi-
judicial body, the proper mode of appeal is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which petition should be filed
within 15 days from notice of the resolution.

On November 9, 2000, petitioner filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of th e Rules of Court, seeking the
nullification of the CSC Resolution dismissing him from the service, but was dismissed further by CA. Petitioner contends that the
CA erred in ruling that the petition for certiorari was made to substitute a lost appeal because while a petition for review under Rule
43 was available, it was not an adequate remedy for Mahinay.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing
petitioner's appeal by way of special civil action for certiorari on the ground that it was the wrong mode of appeal and that the appeal
was filed out of time.

Held: No. The contention is without merit.

As provided by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the proper mode of appeal from the decision of a quasi-judicial agency, like
the CSC, is a petition for review filed with the CA.

The special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be resorted to only when any tribunal, board
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its/his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

In this case, petitioner clearly had the remedy of appeal provided by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The circumstances in
this case do not warrant the application of the exception to the general rule provided by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

The CA, therefore, properly denied petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Certiorari, which in effect
dismissed his Petition for Certiorari.
There have been instances when a petition for certiorari would be treated as a petition for review if filed within the
reglementary period. In this case, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing an appeal under Rule 43, which
period is within 15 days from notice of the judgment. Petitioner received a copy of the CSC Resolution dated July 21, 2000 on
August 11, 2000, so his last day to file an appeal would be August 26, 2000. However, petitioner filed his Motion for Extension of
Time to File a Petition for Certiorari on September 12, 2000, while the petition was actually filed on November 9, 2000. Thus, the
Court of Appeals correctly held that the appeal was filed out of time.
Consequently, the decision of the CSC dismissing petitioner from the service stands. Petition dismissed.