Civil Service Commission v. AlfonsoG.R. No. 179452 (2009)

FACTS:Larry Alfonso is the Director of the Human Resources Management Department of PUP.

Alfonso allegedly abused his authority when he prepared and included his name in Special Order Nos. 0960 and 1004 for overnight services, ostensibly authorizing him to work for 24 hours straight from May 16 to May 20, May 22 to 27 and May 29 to June 2, 2006. As a result, Alfonso made considerable earnings for working in humanly impossible conditions 24 hours straight daily, for three consecutive weeks.

On July 6, 2006, Dr. Pia and Bautista jointly filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Alfonso for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, charging the latter with grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. The affidavit-complaint was lodged before the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Alfonso argued that he only rendered overnight work on May 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 31, 2006. Moreover, 'overnight services' is illustrated per S.O. No. 1004, series of 2006 as “Day 17, arrival 8:00PM; Day 18, departure 8:00AM.” A day of overnight work does not mean continuous two (2) days of rendition of services.

CSC ruled against Alfonso. Alfonso filed an omnibus motion. He sought for reconsideration and requested a change of venue from CSC-Central Office to the CSC-NCR. CSC denied the motion. Alfonso filed another motion (for reconsideration and motion to admit suplemental answer) and argued that CSC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative case. He argued that PUP Board of Regents has the exclusive authority to appoint and remove PUP employees pursuant to RA 8292 in relation to RA 4670. CSC-NCR ordered President of PUP to implement the suspension.

Alfonso filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before CA. CA ruled in favor of Alfonso. CA ruled that PD 1341, the law creating PUP, is the special law governing PUP. Thus, it is the BOR of PUP that should carry out the duties of the investigating committee and has the proper authority to discipline PUP personnel. Accordingly, the power of BOR to hire carries with it the power to discipline. CA further ruled that Civil Service Law provides that CSC may take cognizance of an administrative case in two ways: (1) through a complaint filed by a private citizen against a government official or employee; and (2) appealed cases from the decisions rendered by Secretaries or heads of agencies, instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities in cases filed against officers and employees under their jurisdiction.

ISSUE:Whether the CSC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint filed against Alfonso?

RULING:Yes. Sec. 2(1) and Sec. 3, Art IX-B of the Constitution provides for the scope of CSC. It has the

jurisdiction to supervise the performance of and discipline, if need be, all government employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters such as PUP.

Even in the passage of laws such as RA 8292 and 4670 allowing for the creation of such disciplinary bodies, or even the Civil Service Law of 1975, we cannot interpret the creation of such as having divested the CSC of its inherent power to supervise and discipline government employees, including those in the academe.

Furthermore, Alfonso had already submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the CSC when he filed his counter-affidavit and his motion for reconsideration and requested for a change of venue. It was only when his motion was denied that he suddenly had a change of heart and raised the question of

proper jurisdiction. Respondent's active participation in the proceedings by seeking affirmative relief before the CSC already bars him from impugning the Commission's authority under the principle of estoppel by laches.

Civil Service Commission v. SojorG.R. No. 168766 (2008)

FACTS:Sojor was appointed by Pres. Corazon Aquino as president of the Central Visayas Politechnic

College (CVPC) in Dumaguete City. In 1997, R.A. 8292 (Higher Education oedrnization Act of 1997) was enacted. This law mandated that a Board of Turstees be formed to act as the governing body in state colleges. BOT of CVPC had been appointing Sojor. Later, CVPC was converted to Negros Oriental State University (NORSU).

Three (3) separate administrative cases were filed against Sojor before CSC-Regional Office, to wit:

1. Complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct: Sojor approved the release of salary differentials despite the absence of the required Plantilla and Salary Adjustment Form and valid appointments.

2. Complaint for dishonesty, misconduct and falsification of official documents: Sojor allowed the antedating and falsification of the reclassification differential payroll, to the prejudice of instructors and professors who have pending request for adjustment of their academic ranks.

3. Complaint for nepotism: Sojor appointed his half-sister as casual clerk, in violation of the Admin. Code.Sojor filed a motion to dimiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. He claimed that the CSC had

no jurisdiction over him as a presidential appointee. CSC-RO denied his motion to dismiss.Sojor appealed to CSC. He further argued that since CHED is under the Office of the President,

and the BOT is under CHED, when the BOT appointed him as president, he is considered a presidential appointee. CSC ruled against Sojor. CSC ruled that BOT and CSC have concurrent jurisdiction over cases against officials and employess of the said agency. Moreover, he was not a presidential appointee because he was appointed by the BOT and not the president himself.

Sojor appealed to CA. CA ruled in his favor. CA ruled that the power to appoint carries with it the power to remove or to discipline. Furthermore, CA argued that EO292, which grants disciplinary jurisdiction to the CSC is a general law. EO 292 does not prevail over RA 9299, a special law.

ISSUES:1. Is the president of a state university outisde the reach of the disciplinary jurisdiction

constitutionally granted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) over all civil servants and officials?

2. Does the assumption by the CSC of jurisdiction over a president of a state university violate academic freedom?

RULING:I

No. The Constitution itself grants the CSC the administration over the entire civil service, whether career or non-career. CSC rules provides for Jurisdiction of the Civil Sevice Commission.

While it is true that, as provided by the special law, RA 8292, the BOR (BOT) has jurisdiction over officials and employees, the same law does not however divest the CSC of jurisdiction over a president of a state university. Accordingly, BOR and CSC have concurrent jurisdiction over a

president of a university. When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. (U.P. v. Regino).

IINo. Academic freedom may not be invoked when there are alleged violations of civil service

laws and rules. Academic freedom only encompasses the freedom to determine:(a) Who may teach;(b) Who may be taught:(c) How it shall be taught; and(d) Who may be admitted to study.

De la Cruz v. MoirG.R. No. L-12256 (1917)

FACTS: Election protest.On 20 June 1916, Juan de la Cruz (Juan) filed a protest in CFI Pampanga against Melencio

Trinidad (Melencio) et al., challenging the validity of the election of Melencio to the office of municipal president of Macabebe, Pampanga. Juan moves the court to annul the 193 votes of the illiterate voters. CFI Judge ruled in favor of respondents.

Hon. Percy Moir, as judge of CFI Pampanga, admitted the 193 electors of Macabebe who are illiterate, but voted with the assistance of only one (1) inspector instead of two (2) as required by law. The CFI judge also denied the petitioner's motion to put the election inspectors in Macabebe on the witness stand to identify the votes of the illiterates. Juan also offered to prove some of the 193 voters who are identified as illiterates could actually write and personally prepare their own ballots without the aid of the inspectors. The inspectors allegedly assisted them only to perpetrate fraud on the voters. The evidence offered was the certificates of oaths of electors of Macabebe wherein can be seen who can write and who cannot, the list of 193 illiterate voters, and witness Cornelio Bustos who knew the majority of voters. All of these pieces of evidence was rejected by the CFI Judge. Juan averred that this is in excess of his jurisdiction and an abuse in his judicial discretion.

Juan filed a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:Whether or not the writ of certiorari should be granted in favor of Juan?

RULING:No. The writ of certiorari is a remedy for a case acted upon by a court but with no jurisdiction at

all, and not merely abuse or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the CFI Pampanga has the jurisdiction to hear the election protest (In fact, Juan actively participated in the proceedings). What the petitioner seeks to be relieved from is the actions of the CFI Judge during the trial, or her exercise of jurisdiction. Errors in the exercise of jurisdiction is not correctible by certiorari but an appeal.