[256] HADJI SIRAD v.
CSC
G.R. No. 182267 | 28 August 2009 | Chico-Nazario, J.
TOPIC: Modes of Judicial Review > Certiorari
SUMMARY
Hadji-Sarad, an employee of the Commission on Audit (COA) in the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was formally charged by CSC RO No. XII with
(1) dishonesty, (2) grave misconduct, and (3) conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service. Formerly Pagayanan Romero – another person took the Civil Service
Examinations on her behalf. CSC RO found Pagayanan Romero Hadji-Sarad guilty,
and DISMISSED her from service, affirmed by CSC. CA dismissed Hadji-Sarad’s
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 for being the wrong mode of appeal, should be
Rule 43. SC held that Rule 65 was indeed not the proper remedy, and that the CA is
correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner based on
technicalities.
DOCTRINE
A special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of
appeal. They are mutually exclusive remedies. A special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, Pagayanan failed to provide any
justification for her resort to a special civil action for certiorari, when the remedy of
appeal by petition for review was clearly available.
FACTS
 Petitioner Hadji-Sirad, employee of Commission on Audit (COA) in
Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was formally charged by
CSC Regional Office XII (CSCRO) with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. Pertinent portions of the
Formal Charge read (summarized version; see notes for original copy of the
charge):
o “On Nov. 10, 1994, Hadji-Sirad filled up a Personal Data Sheet
(PDS). It was submitted to COA to support her appointment as
State Auditor I. The PDS indicated that she possesses Career
Service Professional Eligibility for passing the exam on October 17,
1993 at Iligan City with 88.31% rating.
The exam records were compared with the entries in her PDS
which revealed the ff: a) applicant & examinee Hadji-Sirad took the
exam as shown by the photo attached to the Application Form (AF)
and Picture Seat Plan (PSP) for Room 003 Admin Bldg, Iligan City,
Nat’l High School; b) picture in the PDS dated Nov. 10, 1994 shows
no semblance with applicant/examinee Hadji-Sirad and that
examinee Hadji-Sirad looks older than the true Hadji-Sirad despite
the fact that the exam was conducted in 1993 while the PDS was
accomplished in 1994; c) there’s a difference in the strokes in the
signature in the PSP compared with that in the PDS, and that
examinee Hadji used slanting strokes (signature in PSP) while
appointee Hadju-Sirad used vertical strokes (signature in PDS).
These indicate that Hadji-Sirad allowed another person to take
the October 17,1993 Career Service Professional Exam (Exam)
and it undermines the integrity of the civil service exams and
warrants the filing of the administrative case against her.”
 A formal investigation was thereafter conducted. The first hearing of the
administrative case was repeatedly postponed multiple times upon
petitioner’s request. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Change of Venue of
hearing from CSCRO Cotabato City to CSCRO Iligan City due to the
unfavourable peace and order in Cotabato City and that the situs of alleged
offense was in Iligan City but CSC denied the motion. Finally, petitioner and
counsel attended the hearings and both parties were able to present its
evidence.
 Prosecution’s evidence:
o Established that petitioner previously took and failed the Exam on
Nov. 29, 1992 at room 26 Iligan Capitol College; she allegedly took
it again on Oct. 17, 1993.
o Although the pictures and signatures in her AF and PSP of the
1992 Exam were similar to those in her PDS, the pictures and
signature in her AF and PSP of the 1993 Exam were different.
 Petitioner’s evidence:
o Petitioner took the witness stand and admitted she took the Exam
on Nov. 29, 1992 but failed; she applied and took it again on Oct.
17,1993 and passed; the pictures and signatures in the AF and
PSP for the Oct. 17, 1993 Exam were all hers.
o Adelaida Casanguan, Petitioner’s witness and who claimed to have
also taken the Oct. 17, 1993 Exam in the same room 003, claimed
she knew petitioner and saw petitioner take the same
o Petitioner’s other witness, Dick Yasa, Personnel Specialist of
CSCRO, claimed to have known petitioner, their offices sharing the
same building; Yasa assisted in conducting the exam on Oct 17,
1993; he saw petitioner around 7am-730am in Room 003.
 CSCRO Decision:
o Hadji-Sirad found guilty of the charges against her; penalty of
dismissal from service with accessory penalties of forfeiture of
retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, prohibition from
entering the government service and disqualification from taking
future government examinations are likewise imposed.
o MR was denied. So Hadji-Sirad appealed to CSC.
 CSC Decision:
o Appeal is dismissed. CSCRO decision affirmed. MR was denied.
CSC ruled that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. Petitioner did
not even present controverting evidence to support her defense
that she was the same person appearing in the PSP and AF for the
Oct. 17, 1993 Exam and the one who actually took said exam.
Records clearly show that Hadji-Sirad took the Nov 22, 1992
exam but not the Oct 17, 1993 exam.
  Petitioner filed before CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing
that CSC resolutions were made with GAD.
 CA Decision:
o Petition dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal; she
should have filed petition for review under Rule 43; also, she failed
to indicate material date of filing of MR before CSC and to append
said MR in said petition in violation of 2nd & 3rd paragraphs of sec 3
Rule 46; MR of petitioner also denied.
 Hence this present petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUES/HOLDING
1. W/N Rule 65 is the proper remedy – NO.
2. W/N CA is correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner based
on mere technicalities – YES.
3. W/N CSC committed grave abuse of discretion by ignoring the important pieces
of evidence duly presented by the petitioner – NO.
RATIO
1. No.
 Section 50, Rule III of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
CSC states that a party may elevate a decision of the Commission before
the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
1997 Revised Rules of Court. Moreover, Sections 1 and 5, Rule 43 provide
that final orders or resolutions of the CSC are appealable to the Court of
Appeals through a petition for review (see notes).
 Based on above provisions, if petitioner indeed received copy of CSC
resolution on Nov 26, 2007, denying her MR dated Dec 5, 2007, she had 15
days (until Dec 20) to file the petition for review before CA. Instead she filed
a petition for certiorari on Dec 27, 2007, already 22 days after receipt of CSC
Resolution of Nov 26, 2007.
 A special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost/lapsed remedy
of appeal. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when
there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in ordinary course
of law. Certiorari is not allowed when a party fails to appeal a judgment/final
order despite availability of that remedy. Remedies of appeal and certiorari
are mutually exclusive and not alternative nor successive. In this case,
petitioner failed to provide any justification for her resort to special civil action
for certiorari when the remedy of appeal by petition for review was clearly
available.
2. Yes.
 Petitioner failed to comply with requirements of petitions under Rule 65,
specifically the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Sec 3 of Rule 46 (see notes). The
consequence for non-compliance is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the
petition according to the same provision.
 Petitioner failed to indicate in her petition for certiorari before CA the material
date she filed her MR of CSC Resolution dated May 7, 2007 and to append
to the same a certified true copy of said MR so CA rightfully dismissed the
petition.
 Rules of procedure are designed to promote efficiency and to facilitate
attainment of justice, such that strict adherence is required. However, law
and jurisprudence grant courts prerogative to relax compliance with these
rules, with the duty to reconcile the need to put an end to litigation and the
parties’ right to a chance to be heard. Jurisprudence provide for justification
for a court to suspend strict adherence to such rules such as: (a) matters of
life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of compelling circumstances;
(c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault of
the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of showing that
review sought is merely frivolous; and (f) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby. These exceptions the court deemed not to have applied
in this case which will be further explained in the answer to the 3rd issue.
3. No.
 There is no reason to reverse petitioner’s dismissal from service for 2
reasons:
a. She was dismissed from service only after being accorded due
process.
o In administrative proceedings, procedural due process
simply means the chance to be heard or to seek a
reconsideration of the ruling complained of. One may be
heard not just thru verbal arguments but also thru
pleadings (see notes on what admin due process includes;
similar to Ang Tibay Case).
o Records reveal that there was no denial of due process.
Petitioner was given enough notice of formal charge
against her; she was charged only after an initial
investigation; her several requests for postponement of
hearings were granted; both parties able to present their
own evidence; petitioner was able to file an MR with
CSCRO, appeal to CSC, and MR as well, and her petition
before CA and SC
b. The decision of CSCRO, affirmed by CSC, was supported by
competent evidence.
o Substantial proof is enough basis for the imposition of any
disciplinary action upon an employee.
o The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the
employer has reasonable ground to believe that the
employee is responsible for the misconduct, and his
participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and
confidence demanded by his position.
o There is such evidence here to prove petitioner’s guilt in
the administrative case.
 Even only a cursory examination of petitioner’s pictures and signatures in
her PDS and in the AF and PSP for the 1992 and 1993 exams, reveals their
marked differences. CSCRO strengthens such conclusion by adding that
upon evaluation of the 1992 and 1993 exam records and of petitioner’s PDS,
it reveals that she is not the same person who took the later Oct 17, 1993
Exam. The facial features and signatures of the examinee and Hadji-Sirad
are glaringly different. Most notable is the mole on the left side of the cheek
 of Hadji-Sirad which examinee does not have as based on the scanned
photos.
 CSC also made a careful analysis of the records before it was convinced
that another person took the Oct 17, 1993 Exam. It added that there was a
remarkable difference in the signatures in the PSP and AF of the Oct 17
1993 Exam and those in the PSP and AF of Nov 29, 1992 Exam. The
strokes in the former were pressed and slanting while those of the latter
were in an upright stroke and letters less defined. It is clear that she
allowed another to take the 1993 Exam in her behalf to ensure passing
the exam.
 Generally, findings of fact of CSC and CA are given great weight for they are
in a better position to determine the same since evidence are presented
before them. Quasi-judicial bodies like CSC, are better equipped in handling
cases regarding employment status in the Civil Service. Factual findings of
admin agencies are held to be final so long as supported by substantial
evidence, such as this case.
 Petitioner argues that the differences regarding her appearance was due to
passage of time and to the signatures was due her state of mind at the time
she was signing and the kind of writing materials she used.
 SC was unconvinced since she could easily submit evidence to show the
gradual change in her appearance thru the years or sampled of her
signatures made when she was of a different state of mind or using other
implements or papers but she did failed to do so. Moreover, CSC officials
enjoy the presumption of regularity of performance in official duty. Besides,
such a mix-up is highly unlikely due to the strict procedures followed during
civil service exams.
 Despite petitioner’s testimonial evidence that she was at room 003 on Oct
17, 1993, CSCRO and CSC still gave prosecution’s evidence more credit
and SC supports such ruling. Negating her sworn statement of seeing
petitioner take the exam, Yasa actually testified that he merely saw
petitioner’s name at room 003 and saw petitioner around 7-730am but did
not see her stay any longer nor did he see petitioner hand in her exam
papers. The testimonies of Petitioner and Casanguan were self-serving.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The Resolutions dated 18
January 2008 and 12 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02103-
MIN are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner
NOTES
Formal Charge against petitioner read:
The result of the investigation established the following facts:
1. On November 10, 1994, Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad, formerly Pagayanan M.
Romero accomplished a Personal Data Sheet;
2. The said Personal Data Sheet was submitted to the Civil Service Field Office-
COA to support her appointment as State Auditor I;
3. In Item number 18 of the Personal data Sheet, particularly on civil service
eligibility, Hadji-Sirad indicated that she possesses Career Service Professional
Eligibility having passed the examination on October 17, 1993 at Iligan City with
a rating of 88.31%;
4. Accordingly, the examination records of Hadji-Sirad were retrieved. The same
were compared with the entries in her Personal Data Sheet. It is revealed that:
4.1 Applicant and examinee Hadji-Sirad took the same as shown by the
picture attached to the application form and picture seat plan for Room
003 Administration Building, Iligan City National High School, Iligan City.
In fact, it is apparent that these pictures were taken from a single shot;
4.2 Comparison, however of these pictures with that found in the Personal
Data Sheet of Hadji-Sirad dated November 10, 1994 reveals that
appointee bears no semblance with applicant or examinee Hadji Sirad;
Examinee Hadji Sirad looks older than the true Hadji Sirad despite the fact
that the examination was conducted in 1993 while the Personal Data
Sheet was accomplished in 1994;
4.3 There exist differences in the strokes used in affixing the signature in
the picture seat plan compared with that in the personal data sheet. The
examinee Hadji-Sirad used slanting strokes in affixing her signature while
the appointee Hadji-Sirad utilized vertical strokes.
The foregoing facts and circumstances indicate that Pagayanan Romero Hadji-Sirad
allowed another person to take the October 17, 1993 Career Service Professional
Examination. This act undermines the integrity of civil service examinations and
warrants the institution for administrative case against her for Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
WHEREFORE, Pagayanan Romero Hadji-Sirad is hereby formally charged with
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service.
Rule 43, Sec. 1 and 5
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 quasi judicial functions.
Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President,
Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board,
Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission,
Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act. No. 6657, Government Service
Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions
Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of
Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators
authorized by law.
SEC. 5. How appeal taken. – Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for
review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a
copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. The original
copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by
the petitioner.
Second and third paragraphs of Section 3, Rule 46
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. –
xxxx
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates
showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was
received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when
notice of the denial thereof was received.

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 referred to therein, and other documents relevant or
pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court
or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal,
agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite
number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies
of all documents attached to the original.

... The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall
be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.(last pargraph of sec 3)

In admin proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include

the following:
1. The right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings, which
may affect a respondent’s legal rights;
2. A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights;
3. A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a
person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as
impartiality; and
4. A finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted
for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known
to the parties affected