SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 139131. September 27, 2002.]

JESUS R. GONZALES , petitioner, vs . CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and

PHILIPPINE CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER (PCMC) , respondents.

Public Attorney's Office for petitioner.

Office of the Government Corporate Counsel for respondent PCMC.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the Resolution of the CA which dismissed
petitioner's appeal via a petition for review for his failure to comply with Section 6, Rule 43
of the Rules of Court, particularly for failure to attach certi ed true copies of material
portions of the records and supporting papers, and its Resolution denying petitioner's
motion for reconsideration. Subject of his appeal before the CA were Resolutions of the
Civil Service Commission which upheld the dismissal of petitioner as utility worker from
the Philippine Children's Medical Center.
The Supreme Court held that in an appeal via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45
and in an original civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rules 46 and 56, what
is required to be a certi ed true copy is that of the questioned judgment, nal order or
resolution. There is no reason why a stricter requirement should be made for petitions
under Rule 43, which governs appeals from the Court of Tax appeals and quasi-judicial
agencies to the CA. In the case at bar, petitioner's submission of a required document with
the Motion for Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46.
The Court, however, found no cogent reason to set aside the factual nding of the CSC that
there is legal basis for dropping the petitioner from the rolls on the ground of his absences
without approved leave (AWOL). The Court also ruled that petitioner was afforded due
process because he was given an opportunity to be heard or to explain his side.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; REQUIREMENT TO ATTACH CERTIFIED TRUE

COPIES OF THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER OR RESOLUTION; APPLICABLE
IN PETITIONS UNDER RULE 43. — In numerous resolutions issued by this Court we
emphasized that in an appeal via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 and in an original
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rules 46 and 56, what is required to be
a certi ed true copy is the copy of the questioned judgment, nal order or resolution. We
see no reason why a stricter requirement should be made for petitions under Rule 43,
which governs appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies to the
CA. This could not have been intended by the framers of the rules. A contrary ruling would
be too harsh and would not promote the underlying objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Further, we note that
petitioner had attached certi ed true copies of the documents supporting his Motion for
Reconsideration and Compliance. As previously held, submission of a required document
with the Motion for Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with Section 3,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Rule 46. ScCEIA

2. ID.; ID.; FINDING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION THAT THERE IS LEGAL
BASIS FOR DROPPING PETITIONER ON THE GROUND OF AWOL SHOULD BE UPHELD ON
APPEAL; CASE AT BAR. — This Court is not a trier of facts, and its function is limited to
reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court. In this case,
we nd no exceptional circumstance and we nd no cogent reason to set aside the factual
ndings of the CSC in sustaining the action of respondent in the dropping of petitioner
from the rolls on the ground that he was found AWOL (absent without o cial leave). The
CSC noted that petitioner had admitted that effective March 2, 1998, he was absent
without approved leave. Petitioner's unauthorized absences, as found by the CSC,
constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, a ground for disciplinary
action under E.O. No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987. For his services are
essential to the e cient delivery of medical services and the exigencies of the service
require his presence in the o ce. We agree that there is legal basis for dropping petitioner
from the rolls. It is also in accordance with law and rules, notably Section 35 Rule XVI of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. 292 and Paragraph 2.1(b) of CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 12, s. 1994.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DUE PROCESS; ESSENCE THEREOF IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD OR TO EXPLAIN ONE'S SIDE; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner's
assertion that he was denied due process is untenable. The essence of due process is
simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of. Records would show that respondent PCMC had written a letter to
petitioner to report for work and another letter informing him that he was being dropped
from the rolls, due to his Absence Without O cial Leave, with the enumeration of the
reasons and basis thereof. That petitioner only received the notice on March 20, 1998 is of
no moment. In fact, two notices were given him: (a) the notice requiring him to report for
work; and (b) the notice that he would be dropped because of his absences without
o cial leave. Further, petitioner was given su cient opportunity to report for duty after he
received the return-to-work order, but he did not report. Thus, the CSC found no error when
respondent PCMC dropped petitioner from the rolls for his refusal to comply with the
return to-work order within a prescribed period.

DECISION

QUISUMBING , J : p

Petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the Resolution 1 dated January 14, 1999 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. UDK-2819, which dismissed petitioner's
appeal via a petition for review, 2 for his failure to comply with Section 6 (c), Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, and its Resolution 3 dated February 16, 1999, denying petitioner's motion
for reconsideration. Subject of said appeal before the CA were Resolutions Nos. 98-2359 4
and 98-3021 5 of the Civil Service Commission, which upheld the dismissal of petitioner
from respondent Philippine Children's Medical Center (PCMC).
The facts of this case, as culled from records, are as follows:
Petitioner Jesus R. Gonzales was one of the two Utility Workers II assigned at the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Pharmacy Section of respondent Philippine Children's Medical Center (PCMC), a
government-owned and controlled corporation created under P.D. No. 1631, as amended.
At PCMC, petitioner served the patients and the public from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., seven
days a week.
On March 2, 1998, petitioner started absenting himself without an approved leave
(AWOL) and without explaining the reason for his absence to his superiors.
In view of the exigency of petitioner's functions, Ms. Jara Corazon O. Ehera, Human
Resources Management O cer III, wrote a letter-notice dated March 5, 1998 to petitioner
directing him to report for work within three (3) days from receipt of said notice,
otherwise, he would be dropped from the rolls.
During his absence, petitioner was seen on several occasions within the premises of
PCMC, particularly in the Budget O ce, Billing and Cashier, and Personnel Clinic. He
allegedly visited the clinic without consulting any medical problem and when Dr. Galero
once made a surprise visit, he was not found in his house. 6
On March 16, 1998, Dr. Corazon D. Rivera, o cer-in-charge of the Pharmacy Section,
reported petitioner's irresponsibility and lack of concern for his work to Dr. Lillian V. Lee,
Executive Director of PCMC, recommending that petitioner be dropped from the rolls.
Despite the written letter-notice sent to him, petitioner failed to report for work thus
constraining PCMC to drop him from the rolls, effective March 20, 1998. 7
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In Resolution
No. 98-2359 dated September 8, 1998, the CSC upheld the action taken by PCMC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Jesus R. Gonzales is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, the action of the PCMC Executive Director, dropping him from the
rolls, is upheld. 8

The decision, however, stated that considering that the separation of petitioner was
not disciplinary in character, he may be re-employed in the same agency at the discretion
of the appointing authority. 9
Petitioner moved for reconsideration by the CSC of Resolution 98-2359, but it was
denied.
When he led a petition for review in the CA, the petition was denied for failure to
comply with Section 6 (c), Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, 10 particularly for failure
to attach certified true copies of material portions of the records and supporting papers.
The CA Resolution 11 dated January 14, 1999, concluded:
WHEREFORE, for being formally de cient, the instant petition for review is
hereby DISMISSED.

In a Motion for Reconsideration and Compliance, 12 petitioner attached the certi ed

true copies of the required papers. But the CA denied the motion in a Resolution 13 dated
February 16, 1999.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues for resolution:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave error in
dismissing the appeal of herein petitioner based on pure technicality.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 2. Whether or not there is factual and legal basis for respondent PCMC
to drop petitioner from the rolls for his alleged absences without leave. 14

On the rst issue, petitioner argues that the dismissal of the petition by CA on mere
technicality is unwarranted and unjustified since pertinent jurisprudence abounds declaring
in no uncertain terms that dismissals of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned
upon where the policy of the Court is to encourage hearings of appeals based on merits. 15
The same position is taken by the O ce of the Solicitor General in its Manifestation
in Lieu of Comment 16 led before this Court. But respondent PCMC asserts that the
dismissal by the CA of the petition for review is in keeping with Section 7 17 in relation to
Section 6 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court. 18
In Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals, 19 however, we already held that Section 6, Rule
43 of the Revised Rules of Court is not to be construed as imposing the requirement that
all supporting papers accompanying the petition should be certi ed true copies. We
compared this provision with its counterpart provision in Rule 42, on petitions for review
from the RTC to the CA, and noted that under the latter, only the judgments or nal orders
of the lower court need to be certi ed true copies or duplicate originals. In numerous
resolutions issued by this Court we emphasized that in an appeal via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 45 and in an original civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation
to Rules 46 and 56, what is required to be a certi ed true copy is the copy of the
questioned judgment, nal order or resolution. 20 We see no reason why a stricter
requirement should be made for petitions under Rule 43, which governs appeals from the
Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies to the CA. This could not have been
intended by the framers of the rules. A contrary ruling would be too harsh and would not
promote the underlying objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding. 21
Further, we note that petitioner had attached certi ed true copies of the documents
supporting his Motion for Reconsideration and Compliance. 22 As previously held,
submission of a required document with the Motion for Reconsideration constitutes
substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46. 23
On the second issue, petitioner argues that he was denied due process 24 when he
was dropped from the rolls. He avers that he received PCMC's letter dated March 5, 1998
only on March 20, 1998 and thus, had until March 23, 1998 within which to comply with the
directive; 25 that in fact, he did report for work on March 21, 1998, but was barred by
security personnel from entering the company because his name had already been
dropped from the rolls effective March 20, 1998. He contends that his non-compliance
with the return to work directive does not constitute abandonment of work as no person in
his right mind would abandon his job to his own detriment. 26
For analogous reasons, the O ce of the Solicitor General avers that petitioner was
denied due process. The OSG states that he was summarily dismissed without affording
him a hearing and the opportunity to introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his
favor. 27 The OSG also opines that the penalty of dismissal was too severe. 28
In its reply, respondent PCMC insists that the dismissal of petitioner is valid and
legal, considering that petitioner's actuations were clearly irresponsible. They showed lack
of concern for his work and the smooth operation of PCMC. 29
Further, PCMC contends that petitioner was given ample opportunity to explain his
side and to submit evidence and to explain his absence. 30 PCMC points out that they sent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 a letter-notice dated March 5, 1998, to petitioner and he should have taken it upon himself
to report to work, even without any prompting from PCMC, considering the signi cance of
his work. 31 Besides, PCMC claims, petitioner showed the clear intent to sever his
employer-employee relationship with PCMC. Finally, PCMC avers that factual ndings of
the CSC on this matter are entitled to great weight and must be accorded respect and
finality. 32
To avoid circuitous procedure, we shall now consider the merits of the case. This
Court is not a trier of facts, and its function is limited to reviewing errors of law that might
have been committed by the lower court. 33 In this case, we nd no exceptional
circumstance and we nd no cogent reason to set aside the factual ndings of the CSC in
sustaining the action of respondent in the dropping of petitioner from the rolls on the
ground that he was found AWOL (absent without official leave).
The CSC noted that petitioner had admitted that effective March 2, 1998, he was
absent without approved leave. 34 Petitioner's unauthorized absences, as found by the
CSC, constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, a ground for
disciplinary action under E.O. No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987. 35 For his
services are essential to the e cient delivery of medical services and the exigencies of the
service require his presence in the office.
We agree that there is legal basis for dropping petitioner from the rolls. It is also in
accordance with law and rules, notably Section 35 Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing E.O. 292 and Paragraph 2.1 (b) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12, s.
1994 which provides as follows:
Sec. 35. O cers and employees who are absent for at least thirty (30)
days without approved leave are considered on Absence Without Leave (AWOL)
and shall be dropped from the service after due notice. However, when the
exigencies of the service require his immediate presence and he fails/refuses to
return to the service, the head of o ce may drop him from the service even prior
to the expiration of the thirty (30) day period abovestated. 36 (Emphasis ours.)
2.1 Absence without Approved Leave
a. ...
b. If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than thirty
(30) calendar days, written return to work order shall be served on the
official or employee at his last known address on record. Failure on his
part to report for work within the period stated in the order shall be a valid
ground to drop him from the rolls. 37 (Emphasis ours.)
Petitioner's assertion that he was denied due process is untenable. The essence of
due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of. 38
Records would show that respondent PCMC had written a letter to petitioner to
report for work 39 and another letter informing him that he was being dropped from the
rolls, due to his Absence Without O cial Leave, with the enumeration of the reasons and
basis thereof. 40 That petitioner only received the notice on March 20, 1998 is of no
moment. In fact, two notices were given him: (a) the notice requiring him to report for
work; and (b) the notice that he would be dropped because of his absences without
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 o cial leave. Further, petitioner was given su cient opportunity to report for duty after he
received the return-to-work order, but he did not report. Thus, the CSC found no error when
respondent PCMC dropped petitioner from the rolls for his refusal to comply with the
return-to-work order within a prescribed period. 4 1
Finally, it must be emphasized that under CSC Circular No. 12, series of 1994, the
action dropping petitioner from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature and does not result in
the forfeiture of his bene ts nor his disquali cation from re-employment in the
government. Likewise, dropping from the rolls of petitioner is without prejudice to his re-
appointment at the discretion of the appointing authority and subject to Civil Service laws,
rules and regulations.
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 14, 1999 in CA-
G.R. SP No. UDK-2819 and its Resolution dated February 16, 1999 are SET ASIDE insofar
as it denied petitioner's appeal for his failure to comply with Section 6 (c), Rule 43 of the
Revised Rules of Court. But Resolutions Nos. 98-2359 and 98-3021 of the Civil Service
Commission, dropping petitioner from the rolls of respondent PCMC, without prejudice to
his re-employment in the government service, are AFFIRMED. SaETCI

No pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 80.
2. Id. at 48-61.
3. Id. at 95.
4. Id. at 62-65.
5. Id. at 66-68.
6. Id. at 126.
7. Id. at 32.
8. Id. at 39.
9. Ibid.
10. Sec. 6, Rule 43. Contents of the petition. — The petition for review shall (a) . . . ; (c) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award,
judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of
such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and .
...
11. Rollo, p. 80.
12. CA Rollo, pp. 46-53.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 13. Rollo, p. 95.
14. Id. at 17-18.
15. Id. at 203.
16. Id. at 133-151.
17. Sec. 7, Rule 43. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the
petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of
the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition,
and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
18. Rollo, p. 233.
19. 324 SCRA 619, 625 (2000).
20. Martirez vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 133766, January 13, 1999; Borja vs. Judge
Hontanosas, Jr., G.R. No. 134748, January 13, 1999; Regalado, et al. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
134671, January 13, 1999; G and M [Phils], Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 133836,
January 13, 1999.
21. Supra, note 19 at 625-626.
22. CA Rollo, pp. 46-53.

23. Uy vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 129651, 344 SCRA 36, 48 (2000), citing
Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 676, 682
(1999).
24. Rollo, p. 208.
25. Ibid.
26. Id. at 209-210.
27. Id. at 145.
28. Id. at 148.
29. Id. at 118.
30. Id. at 122.
31. Id. at 119.
32. Id. at 230.
33. Bañas vs. Asia Pacific Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 128703, 343 SCRA 527, 535
(2000). See also Cebu Woman's Club vs. De la Victoria, G.R. No. 120060, 327 SCRA 533,
537 (2000).
34. Rollo, p. 64.
35. E.O. 292 — Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Sub-title A.
CHAPTER 7. DISCIPLINE
a. ...

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 b. The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
xxx xxx xxx

14. Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or

frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours;

xxx xxx xxx

27. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
36. Sec. 35, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. 292.
37. Paragraph 2.1 (b) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12, s. 1994.

38. Audion Electric Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 308 SCRA 340, 353
(1999).

39. Rollo, p. 31.

40. Id. at 32.
41. Id. at 64.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com