AMA Computer College vs Nacino Facts: AMA employed Nacino as Online Coordinator of the college.

. The Human Resources ivision !upervisor "!an #edro$ found Nacino from his post. !an #edro issued a Memo re%uiring Nacino to e&plain his a'sence. Nacino e&plained saying that he had to rush home at (:()pm 'ecause he *as suffering from +,M 'ut he had gone 'ac- to the school at .:(/pm. !an #edro as-ed for another e&planation 'ecause the one she gave 0does not conform to a previous investigation conducted.0 Nacino gave the same e&planation. !an #edro filed a formal complaint against Nacino for false testimony1 in addition to the charge of a'andonment. Nacino *as placed under preventive suspension for a ma&imum of 2/ days pending investigation. The investigating committee found Nacino guilty as charged and *as dismissed from service. Nacino filed a complaint for illegal suspension and termination 'efore the NCM,. AMA3s representative "4ali56ali$ signed the su'mission agreement1 accepting the 6urisdiction of 7A !antiago. ,efore the 7A1 the parties agreed to settle amica'ly. The compromise agreement1 *hich included a %uitclaim and release1 *as prepared and signed1 'ut the chec- in payment of the consideration for the settlement had yet to 'e released. Nacino died in an accident. The 7A ordered Nacino3s reinstatement and payment of his 'ac-*ages. ue to AMA3s failure to ay the sum1 Nacino *ithdre* from the Compromise Agreement prior to the accident1 as sho*n 'y the conduct of a hearing *here 'oth parties appeared and *ere directed to file their position papers. The 7A also stated that Nacino complied1 'ut AMA failed to file its position paper. The 7A issued a *rit of e&ecution upon motion of Nacino3s surviving spouse. AMA filed a motion to %uash the *rit1 'ut the 7A refused to receive it. The heirs of Nacino *ere a'le to garnish AMA3s 'an- deposits in the amount of ).8. AMA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 9) 'efore the CA. CA dismissed the petition 'ecause it *as the *rong mode of revie*. The proper remedy should have 'een an appeal 'y *ay of Rule :2 of the ROC. AMA filed an MR 'ut it *as denied 'y the CA. ;ssue: <hether the proper remedy is a petition for revie* under Rule :21 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 9) Ruling: The proper remedy in this case is a petition for revie* under Rule :2. Accdg to the case of +u=on evelopment ,an-1 a 7A1 *hether acting solely or in a panel1 en6oys in la* the status of a %uasi56udicial agency. His decisions and a*ards are appeala'le to the CA 'ecause the a*ards 'ecome final and e&ecutory upon the lapse of the period to appeal. Their a*ards determine the rights of the parties1 their decisions have the same effect as 6udgments of a court. Therefore1 the proper remedy from an a*ard of a 7A is a petition for revie* to the CA according to !ection (1 Rule :2 of the Rules. The general rule is that the proper remedy from decisions of 7As is a petition for revie* under Rule :2 of the Rules. An independent action for certiorari may 'e availed of only *hen there is no appeal or any plain1 speedy and ade%uate remedy in the ordinary course la*1 and it is not a su'stitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal. The e&ceptions to this are *hen: a$ pu'lic *elfare and advancement of pu'lic policy dictate> '$ 'roader interest of 6ustice so re%uire> c$ *rits issued are null> and d$ the order amounts to an oppressive e&ercise of 6udicial authority. ;n this case1 none of the recogni=ed e&ceptions are present. AMA failed to sho* circumstances that *ould 6ustify a deviation from the general rule. #rocedural rules are not to 'e disdained as mere technicalities. They may not 'e ignored to suit the convenience of a party.