G.R. No. 167938 5 of 9 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/167938.htm Before delving into the merits of the petition, we shall first deal with the threshold procedural questions raised herein. Respondents aver that the petition must be dismissed since Hanjin [14] elevated the case via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil [15] Procedure, instead of under Rule 45. Time and again, we said that the special civil action for certiorari is not and cannot be made a [16] Here, as correctly pointed out substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal under Rule 45. by the Solicitor General, Hanjin failed to prove that it had no appeal or any other efficacious remedy against the decision of the Court of Appeals and the proper remedy of a party aggrieved is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As provided in Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review on certiorari, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent civil action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of [17] appeal. Moreover, petitioner should have appealed the NLRCs adverse ruling of illegal dismissal to the Court of Appeals. This, petitioner failed to do. The records reveal that only private respondent Ramos appealed the NLRCs decision to the Court of Appeals praying for the award of the full monetary value of the unexpired portion of his employment contract, and not merely his three months salary as provided under Republic Act No. [18] 8042. Thus, with regard to petitioner, the factual findings of illegal dismissal by the NLRC had already become final. [19] In Asuncion v. National Labor Relations Commission, we ruled that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, thus depriving the appellate court jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain [20] the appeal. As we said, although Hanjin had the opportunity to appeal its case, it did not. Likewise, by availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits 1/25/2016 2:57 PM