juvy ageas

EMIN  VS. CSC (2002)

G.R. NO. 139794, FEBRUARY 27, 2002

FACTS:

Petitioner, a Non-Formal Education (NFE) Supervisor of DECS in Kidapawan, Cotabato was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service when he issued fake eligibility certificates to the teachers for a fee. He was found guilty with the penalty of dismissal from the service including all the accessory penalties were imposed upon him.  He elevated the case to CA but was dismissed for failure to comply with Sec. 5, Rules 43 for the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the CA granted the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and time to amend his petition wherein he raised the issues of original jurisdiction of CSC over public teachers invoking RA 4670; and whether he was accorded due process. The CA found the petition unmeritorious.

ISSUE:

1.       Whether or not the court of appeals erred in finding that the Civil Service Commission has original jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers.

2.       Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the petitioner was not accorded his right to due process.

3.       Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was sufficient ground to dismiss the petitioner from service.

4.       Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not admitting the newly discovered evidence. 

HELD: 

JURISDICTION -  Petitioner’s contention that RA 4670 is applicable to this case was given merit however the proceedings conducted by the public respondent CSC pursuant to the Constitution and P.D. 807  can no longer be nullified on procedural grounds. Notably, participation by parties in the administrative proceedings without raising any objection thereto bars them from raising any jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered against them. Therefore, under the principle of Estoppel by Laches, petitioner is now barred from impugning the CSC’s jurisdiction over the case.

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS - Petitioner’s contention was found unmeritorious. SC pointed out the difference between the due process in its strict judicial sense and the administrative due process wherein his participation in the administrative proceedings proved that CSC had afforded him sufficient opportunity to be heard and defend himself.

DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE – SC ruled that it is not the court’s function to evaluate the facts all over again and upheld the unanimous findings of both CSC and CA.

NEW EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED – Despite the knowledge of the importance of Mr. Cruz’s affidavit, petitioner failed to secure nor did he asked for subpoena duces tecum to obtain it. SC is not persuaded by petitioner’s claim for said affidavit for it appears that it’s a last ditch effort to clear petitioner’s name, a dilatory contrivance for petitioner’s benefit.

Wherefore, petition is denied. CA’s decision is affirmed. Costs against petitioner.

 

SANTIAGO VS. CSC (1989)

G.R. NO. 81467, OCTOBER 27, 1989

FACTS:  

Petitioner, a Customs Collector I, granting his qualifications, was extended a permanent appointment as Customs Collector III and was approved by the CSC, NCR Office. However, a petition was filed against said promotion by respondent Jose, a Customs Collector II, on the ground that he was next-in-rank. The board decided to revoke petitioner’s appointment and directed respondent Jose to be appointed instead. CSC also affirmed the Board Resolution and further pointed out Jose’s better qualifications and cited paragraphs (a) and (h), Sec.9 of the Civil Service Law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Board has the authority to revoke the petitioner’s appointment?

HELD: 

NO.   The SC found no reason to disturb petitioner’s promotional appointment, that the minimum qualifications and standard of merit and fitness have been adequately satisfied as found by the appointing authority. Moreover, SC defined the appointing power of the CSC wherein it can only approve or disapprove the appointment made by the proper authorities based on the civil service eligibility or the required qualifications of the appointee. Thus, it has no authority to revoke the said appointment simply because it believed that private respondent Jose was better qualified for it would have constituted an encroachment of the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.

Wherefore, CSC’s Resolution No. 87-554 is set aside and petitioner’s promotional appointment as Customs Collector III is upheld. The temporary restraining order issued against CSC resolution is made permanent.

 CSC VS. PCSO (2010)

G.R. NO. 185766 and G.R. No. 185767

 NOVEMBER 23, 2010

FACTS: 

These are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the CSC questioning two separate decisions of the CA regarding appointments in the PCSO.

Case 1 - G.R. No. 185766  and  Case 2 - G.R. No. 185767 

                Sarsonas and Ortegas were appointed under temporary status by the Board of Directors of PCSO as Assistant Department Manager II of the IAD; and Planning and Production Department of PCSO respectively. However, said appointments were denied by CSCFO-OP on the ground that appointees did not meet the eligibility requirement for the position. The latter further certified that there were other qualified eligible individuals who signified their interest to be appointed to the position. Invoking Sec.7(3), Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, PCSO argued that said position did not fall under the categories mentioned and therefore does not require CSE eligibility since it does not require presidential appointment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the position of Assistant Department Manager II falls under the CES?

HELD: 

NO.   The SC ruled that the position of Assistant Department Manager II is indisputably not one of those enumerated under the Administrative Code. There is also no question that the CESB has not identified the position to be of equal rank to those enumerated. Failing in any of the 2 requirements, a position cannot be considered as one covered by the third-level or CES. Furthermore, the subject position lies in the appointing power of the PCSO General Manager and not by the President of the Philippines. Therefore, the Assistant Department Manager II position does not require CSE eligibility.

Petition is denied.