509 Phil. 530
AZCUNA, J.:
After filing his Answer, respondent Albao filed on February 18, 1999 an "Urgent Motion to Resolve" the issue of whether or not the Civil Service Commission has original jurisdiction over the administrative case. Respondent contended that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the same for the following reasons:
- That in support of his permanent appointment as Executive Assistant IV, in the Office of the Vice-President, he stated in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished on July 1, 1998 that he took and passed the Assistant Electrical Engineer Examination held on October 15 and 16, 1988 with a rating of 71.64%;
- To support his claim, he submitted a Report of Rating showing he obtained a rating of 71.64% during the aforesaid Assistant Electrical Engineering Examination, all purportedly issued by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC); and
- That the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) has informed CSC-NCR that the name Ranulfo P. Albao does not appear in the Table of Results and Masterlists of examinees of the Board of Electrical Engineering which contain the names of those who took the Assistant Electrical Engineer Examination given in October, 1988; and
- That the examinee number appearing in his Report of Rating is assigned to one Bienvenido AniƱo, Jr.[6]
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby rules that the Civil Service Commission - National Capital Region has jurisdiction over disciplinary cases against employees of agencies, local or national for offenses committed within its geographical area.[8]Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Civil Service Commission on February 1, 2001, in Resolution No. 010315, thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. The Civil Service Commission - National Capital Region is hereby ordered to continue with the formal investigation of Ranulfo Albao.[9]Respondent filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals alleging that the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the said Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, and as a consequence, Resolution Nos. 001826 and 010315, dated August 11, 2000, and February 1, 2001, respectively, of the Civil Service Commission, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. No costs.The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution promulgated on September 26, 2002.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The main issue in this case is whether or not the Civil Service Commission has original jurisdiction to institute the instant administrative case against respondent Albao through its regional office, the CSC-NCR.
- WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT CSC-NCR EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT INSTITUTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HEREIN RESPONDENT.
- WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE POWER CONFERRED UPON THE PETITIONER TO HEAR AND DECIDE ADMINISTRATIVE CASES DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POWER TO ITSELF INITIATE AND PROSECUTE SAID CASES.[11]
Section 12. Powers and Functions -- The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:Petitioner contends that Section 12 (11) above categorically states that the Commission has the power "to hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal."[13] As such, when the Commission, in the course of the performance of its official and other duties, comes to know of any transgression committed by a government employee, it can initiate the necessary proceedings. In this case, it initiated the administrative proceedings against respondent after the discovery of the latter's spurious eligibility. Hence, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that it exceeded its jurisdiction in instituting the administrative case against respondent.. . .(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it. . . .[12]. . .(16) Delegate authority for the performance of any function to departments, agencies and offices where such function may be effectively performed;. . .
Sec. 16. Offices in the Commission. -- The Commission shall have the following offices:. . .(15) The Regional and Field Offices.-- . . . . Each Regional Office shall have the following functions:. . .(c) Perform such other functions as may be delegated by the Commission.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.Section 12, Title 1 (A), Book V of EO No. 292 enumerates the powers and functions of the Civil Service Commission, one of which is its quasi-judicial function under paragraph 11, which states:
Section 12. Powers and Functions -- The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:Section 47, Title 1 (A), Book V of EO No. 292, on the other hand, provides, as follows:. . .
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it. . . .[16]
SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.-(1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.Furthermore, Section 48, Title 1(A), Book V of EO No. 292 provides for the procedure in administrative cases against non-presidential appointees, thus:
(2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days' salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.[17]
SEC. 48. Procedure in Administrative Cases Against Non-Presidential Appointees. -- (1) Administrative proceedings may be commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the Secretary or head of office of equivalent rank, or head of local government, or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon sworn, written complaint of any other person.Respondent Albao was a contractual employee in the Office of the Vice President before his appointment to a permanent position, which appointment was, however, requested to be retrieved by the Office of the Vice President and at the same time disapproved by the Civil Service Commission.
SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.-(1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. . . . [18]The present case, however, partakes of an act by petitioner to protect the integrity of the civil service system, and does not fall under the provision on disciplinary actions under Sec. 47. It falls under the provisions of Sec. 12, par. 11, on administrative cases instituted by it directly. This is an integral part of its duty, authority and power to administer the civil service system and protect its integrity, as provided in Article IX-B, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by removing from its list of eligibles those who falsified their qualifications. This is to be distinguished from ordinary proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide member of the system, for acts or omissions that constitute violations of the law or the rules of the service.