587 Phil. 631
REYES, R.T., J.:
Liwanag's complaint was eventually referred to the Office of the Coast Guard Judge Advocate (OCGJA). However, despite the issuance of a subpoena directing him to appear before the investigating officers and submit his counter-affidavit and any evidence on his behalf, petitioner failed to appear. Instead, petitioner questioned the proceedings, claiming that the OCGJA was not the proper office to conduct the investigation. Despite his protest, the investigation proceeded in due course, based mainly on Dr. Liwanag's evidence.
- On or about February, 2002, at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, Capt. Caballero entered the dental detachment of the Philippine Coast Guard to obtain a treatment with Dr. Donna B. Dinglasan, a dentist and also a civilian employee of the Philippine Coast Guard;
- While he was in the receiving area waiting for Dr. Dinglasan, he was talking to me and other personnel of such clinic/detachment;
- As I was sitting at the bench listening to him, he walked towards me and, he suddenly touched my thighs. I was shocked and was not able to react with his advancement;
- He sat beside and very close to me on my right side and put his left hand at the side of my leg, touching and rubbing it in a back and forth motion. I was surprised that I immediately stood up and walk (sic) away from him;
- I went directly to the treatment room and talked about the incident to Lt. Rodolfo S. Ingel, Jr., but he just told me to forget about it and said, "Hayaan mo na, matanda na yon";
- At around three o'clock in the afternoon, that same day, on my way to my locker room, which is located at the far end of the hallway to get something, I chanced upon Capt. Caballero who came from the toilet which is also located near the locker room;
- He noticed me. Since the locker room is open, he entered such room and said, "Patingin naman ng locker mo." He closed the door and suddenly embraced and pulled me towards him. He kissed me on the cheek, then he forcefully moved his lips towards my lips;
- I right away pushed him and drove him back and resisted his advances. Then, he left me;
- I was stunned, shocked and trembling;
- I really felt insulted, disgusted, humiliated and sickened of what Captain Caballero did to me; afterwards I went to Lt. Ingel crying. I told him what transpired in the locker room;
- I can hardly sleep for so many nights after the incident;
- Since May 2002, there were already bad rumors going on at the headquarters, which put me on the (sic) bad light and the center of the controversy and mockery;
- I am executing this affidavit-complaint to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts for the purpose of instituting formal criminal and administrative charges against CAPTAIN ERNESTO S. CABALLERO PCG (CSG) with postal address at Philippine Coast Guard Headquarters Support Group, 139 25th Street, Port Area, Manila for the acts described above.[3]
On August 14, 2003, petitioner filed before the RTC in Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition with an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against respondents PCG-ESB, its members and Dr. Liwanag. Petitioner sought to nullify and set aside the orders[7] issued by the PCG-ESB in relation to ESB Case No. 003-03, entitled "Re: Capt. Ernesto S. Caballero," for misconduct. He also sought the nullification of DOTC Department Order (DO) Nos. 2000-61[8] and 2002-76[9] as well as Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64.[10] The DOs were the basis for the constitution of the PCG-ESB. In essence, petitioner argued that the PCG-ESB acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the administrative complaint for sexual harassment filed by Dr. Liwanag.
- Capt. Ernesto S. Caballero was holding a very sensitive position and a member of the PCG Promotions Board B when the incident happened. His acts constitutes misconduct as he abused his authority and moral ascendancy over a female Civilian Employee who has been working in the PCG organization for the last four (4) years and the wife of a PCG Junior Officer whose promotion falls under the jurisdiction of the said Board.
- Pursuant to DOTC Department Order No. 2000-61 and Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, this case is submitted to this Board to determine the respondent Officer's fitness and suitability to remain in the service.[6]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED. The creation of ESB and its procedure are hereby declared IMPROPER and IRREGULAR and the proceeding had thereon against petitioner is declared NULL and VOID as such Board has no jurisdiction over the complaint of Dra. Jennifer G. Liwanag.Following are pertinent segments of discussion by the RTC:
The preliminary injunction is hereby made PERMANENT, and the respondent board and all its members as well as private respondent Dra. Jennifer G. Liwanag are hereby directed to cease and desist from continuing the questioned proceedings.[12]
The primordial issues to be resolved in this case are as follows:Public respondents moved for reconsideration.[14] The motion was, however, denied in an Order[15] dated October 28, 2005.The first issue has been squarely passed upon by this Court in its order dated September 9, 2003. To reiterate, the jurisdiction of this Court over the subject case springs from Section 4 Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court on Civil Procedure which unequivocally provides that petition shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area if it relates to the acts or omissions of a board, among others.
- Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the instant petition;
- Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of estoppel;
- Whether or not the validity of DOTC Department Order Nos. 2000-61 and 2002-76 and Memo Circular No. 2000-64 was seasonably raised to this Court; and
- Whether respondent board has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
What is involved in this case is a board exercising administrative discipline over the PCG officers created by the DOTC. While it is true that petitioner alleged that ESB is a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial function, such allegation is not sufficient to confer or loss jurisdiction. The crucial matter is the real import of such board to determine which court has jurisdiction. This is so because the legal precept is that jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be acquired by mere acquiescence of the parties. Respondent board not being co-equal body of the Regional Trial Court, the instant petition is validly filed to this Court.
Anent the second issue, the Supreme Court has frequently declared a long standing rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or law. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties; it cannot be acquired through waiver, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties (Mun. of Sogod v. Rosal, G.R. No. L-38204, Sept. 24, 1991, 201 SCRA 632). Thus, the fact that petitioner had once sat as member of ESB, by itself, could not prevent him from questioning the jurisdiction of respondent board.x x x x
Department Order No. 2000-61, creating the PCG-ESB, was issued on November 6, 2000 by the DOTC pursuant to the Executive Order No. 477, series of 1998 promulgated by then President Fidel V. Ramos. It is undisputed, however, that with the advent of said EO 477, the PCG has ceased to exist as a major unit of the Philippine Navy and they were, as a consequence, separated from the command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Not being part of Phil. Navy or AFP, PCG loses its military character and civilianized in the process.
However, subsequently, the DOTC issued the questioned circular, Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, which outlined the rules and regulations on the discharge or separation by administrative action of all PCG officers. This circular was made and adopted pursuant to Executive Order No. 337, series of 1998.x x x x
Thereafter, on December 9, 2002, the DOTC issued Department Order No. 2002-76 regarding re-composition of PCG-ESB pursuant to Department Order No 2000-61, which created the PCG-ESB.x x x x
As borne out by the records, it is no less than the General Headquarters of the AFP, through the Deputy Chief of Staff of Personnel (J-1) who categorically stated and confirmed that PCG has ceased to be a major unit of the Philippine Navy, AFP.x x x x
Moreover, in the cited case of ELPIDIO SORIANO v. REUBEN S. LISTA, et al., G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003, the Supreme Court has made an express pronouncement that the PCG is under the DOTC and no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the Armed Forces of the Philippines. And while public respondents may argue that such ruling refers to the promotion of PCG Officers, this court could not see any reason why such pronouncement could not be applied on the appropriateness of continuous adaptation of military system in the PCG notwithstanding the irreversible fact that it is no longer part of the military establishment.x x x x
This Court is not saying that the DOTC cannot issue a Department Order or Circular for the discipline of PCG officers. The DOTC has all the rights to do so being tasked of the administrative supervision over PCG. But as manifested by private respondent's counsel on their comment, it is the Civil Service Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment that should govern because DOTC is a civilian component of government such that the DOTC Secretary should create the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) of the PCG, which should handle all cases of sexual harassment pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 01-0940.
This Court does not agree with public respondent's view that PCG-ESB could proceed independently of another PCG Administrative proceeding. As there is only one act complained of, there must be only one administrative proceeding in the PCG against petitioner, which regrettably, ESB, a military type proceeding is not appropriate.[13]
(I) Does the trial court have jurisdiction to pass upon PCG-ESB orders dated July 10, 2003 and July 31, 2003 and to enjoin the administrative proceedings being conducted by the PCG-ESB which, according to Capt. Caballero's judicial admission, is a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial functions?;
(II) Was the petition below questioning the validity of DOTC Department Orders Nos. 2000-61 and 2002-76, as well as Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64 filed seasonably?; (III) Are DOTC Department Order No. 2000-61, which created the PCG-ESB, and DOTC Department Order No. 2002-76, which recomposed the PCG-ESB lawful?; (IV) Is DOTC Memorandum Circular No. 2000-64, which prescribes the rules and regulations for the discharge or separation by administrative action of PCG uniformed personnel lawful?; and, (V) Does the PCG-ESB have jurisdiction to conduct administrative proceedings against Capt. Caballero?[16]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby GRANTED and the appealed Decision dated August 2, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37 in Civil Case No. 03-107563 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered DISMISSING the petition for certiorari and prohibition for lack of merit.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Before discussing at length the issues hoisted by petitioner, it would be instructive to look into the background relating to the establishment of the PCG.
- WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVAILING LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE, PARTICULARLY THE RULING OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF SORIANO III VS. LISTA, (399 SCRA 437), WHEN IT HELD THAT UNIFORMED PERSONNEL OF THE PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD (PCG) ARE STILL COVERED BY THE MILITARY LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE, THEREBY VESTING JURISDICTION TO PCG-ESB.
- WHETHER THE MANIFEST BIAS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PCG-ESB AGAINST THE PETITIONER HAS OUSTED THEM OF ITS JURISDICTION TO TRY AND DECIDE THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER.[18] (Underscoring supplied)
Our Ruling
SECTION 1. Coast Guard Objectives. - There is hereby created in the Philippine Navy a major unit to be known as Philippine Coast Guard which shall have the following general objectives:On March 30, 1998, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order (EO) No. 475[21] which transferred the PCG from the Department of National Defense (DND) to the Office of the President. The transfer was made pursuant to the President's authority under Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of EO No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) to reorganize the Office of the President through the transfer of any agency or function to the Office of the President. EO No. 475 contains a third "whereas" clause,[22] which states that the Philippine Coast Guard remains a subordinate unit of the Philippine Navy. Further, Sections 3 and 6 of EO No. 475 states:x x x x
SECTION 4. Organization; Administration. - The Philippine Coast Guard shall be headed by a Commandant who shall be a Flag Officer. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, the Flag Officer-in-Command, Philippine Navy, shall organize the Philippine Coast Guard into operational units of subordinate commands and equip the same as may be necessary for effective exercise of the functions and duties vested upon it by law, and shall promulgate rules and regulations necessary for its administration. The Philippine Coast Guard shall be administered and maintained as a separate unit of the Philippine Navy, and it shall be specially trained and equipped for the effective discharge of police duties at sea.[20] (Underscoring supplied)
SECTION 3. Implementing Requirements. - There is hereby created a Transition and Liquidation Committee to be composed of the DOTC as Chairman, the Philippine Navy, PCG, Department of Budget and Management and the Office of the President as members. These agencies shall designate their respective representatives to this Committee which shall recommend to the President the necessary plans and measures to effect the transfer within 30 days from the signing of this EO. The Committee shall likewise, undertake the appropriate inventory and disposition of all PCG properties.Subsequently, President Ramos issued EO No. 477 on April 15, 1998 transferring the PCG to the DOTC. Section 1 of EO No. 477 states:x x x x
SECTION 6. Pay, Allowances, and Retirement of Uniformed Personnel. - PCG uniformed personnel shall continue to receive the same base bay, longevity pay, and other allowances and benefits as authorized for corresponding grades and ranks in the AFP. PCG uniformed personnel shall continue to be covered by PD 1638 (AFP Retirement Law), as amended, until such time as the PCG is able to establish its own retirement system under a regime and timetable agreed upon by the Committee.[23]
Section 1. Transfer. - The PCG is hereby transferred from the Office of the President to the DOTC. The DOTC shall exercise administrative supervision over the PCG. (Underscoring supplied)EO No. 477 also provided that the Transition and Liquidation Committee (TLC) created pursuant to EO No. 475 shall continue to exercise its functions. Section 3 of EO No. 477 specifically provided:
The Committee shall likewise prepare plans and measures to ensure the smooth transfer of personnel from the PN to the PCG. Such plans and measures shall include the rules and guidelines covering matters pertaining to the transfer of commissionship of PCG officers, the administration and discipline and order during the transition period and appointments and promotions and benefits of officers and enlisted men of the PCG, among others.[24] (Underscoring supplied)Section 6 of EO No. 477 further provided that PCG uniformed personnel shall continue to receive the same base pay, longevity pay and other allowances and benefits authorized for corresponding grades and ranks in the AFP. The same section likewise declared that PCG uniformed personnel shall continue to be covered by the AFP Retirement Law until such time as the PCG is able to establish its own retirement system as provided for by the transition committee.[25]
CONCERN | PLAN/MEASURE | IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENT |
5. Administration of Discipline and Order | Under Section 4 of RA No. 5173, the PCG shall, "subject to the approval of the Secretary of the National Defense, promulgate rules and regulations necessary for its administration." Since Section 1 of EO No. 477 transfers administrative supervision over the PCG to the DOTC, approval for the promulgation of such rules and regulations now rests upon the Secretary, DOTC. A PCG Code of Discipline for Uniformed Personnel shall therefore be formulated and promulgated subject to the Secretary's approval. | By DOTC (being formulated) |
6. Procurement, Promotion, Separation and Attrition | Under Section 4 of RA No. 5173, the PCG shall "subject to the approval of the Secretary of National Defense x x x promulgate rules and regulations necessary for its administration." Since Section 1 of EO No. 477 transfers administrative supervision over the PCG to the DOTC, approval for the promulgation of such rules and regulations now rests upon the Secretary, DOTC. Coast Guard/DOTC guidelines covering procurement, promotion, separation and attrition shall therefore be formulated and promulgated subject to the Secretary's approval. Until such guidelines are promulgated, however, the PCG shall remain covered by pertinent AFP/PN rules and regulations. | PCG/DOTC guidelines (being formulated by the PCG for the approval of the Secretary, DOTC) |
1. Purpose. - Pursuant to paragraph 12 of Executive Order No. 337 dated 13 September 1998 hereby prescribed are the rules and regulations as well as the procedures governing the discharge or separation from the Coast Guard service of PCG Officers.I. Being now subject to the administrative supervision of the DOTC, the PCG has become a civilian agency with a distinct administrative disciplinary system for its uniformed personnel administered by the PCG-Efficiency and Separation Board.
2. Discharge or Separation from the Service. - PCG Officer shall be administratively discharged or separated from the service as provided in EO# 337, series of 1998 and these implementing rules and regulations.
a. Referral of Case for Misconduct. - When a PCG Officer commits any act of misconduct of such a nature and gravity as to warrant his/her discharge or separation from the service, his/her name and record shall be referred by the Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard to the PCG Efficiency and Separation Board for the determination of his/her suitability or fitness for retention in the service.x x x x
4. PCG Efficiency and Separation Board. -
a. Designation. - The Efficiency and Separation Board established under Executive Order No. 337, s-88 shall be officially designated as the Philippine Coast Guard Efficiency and Separation Board.
(2) Administrative Supervision. - (a) Administrative supervision which shall govern the administrative relationship between a department or its equivalent and regulatory agencies or other agencies as may be provided by law, shall be limited to the authority of department or its equivalent to generally oversee the operations of such agencies and to insure that they are managed effectively, efficiently and economically but without interference with day-to-day activities; or management audit,Pursuant to this authority, the DOTC via Memorandum Circular No. 2000-61 created the PCG-Efficiency and Separation Board to oversee the promotion, discharge or separation from the service of PCG uniformed personnel. The memorandum circular likewise prescribed the rules, regulations and the procedures to be adopted by the ESB in the performance of its functions.
performance evaluation and inspection to determine compliance with policies, standards and guidelines of the department; to take such action as may be necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses and other forms of maladministration; and to review and pass upon budget proposals of such agencies but may not increase or add to them;
(b) Such authority shall not, however, extend to: (1) appointments and other personnel actions x x x.[26]
Lastly, petitioners contend that by placing them under restrictive custody, they are made to suffer lesser rights than those enjoyed by private citizens. On this score, the Court's pronouncement in Canson, et al. v. Hidalgo, et al. is categorical. It was held there that although the PNP is civilian in character, its members are subject to the disciplinary authority of the Chief, Philippine National Police, under the National Police Commission. Courts cannot, by injunction, review, overrule, or otherwise interfere with valid acts of police officials. The police organization must observe self-discipline and obey a chain of command under civilian officials.We take the same position here. The Philippine Coast Guard is a distinct agency. Its uniformed personnel ought not to be treated in the same manner as other civil servants.
Elsewise stated, police officers are not similarly situated with ordinary civil service employees. The PNP has its own administrative disciplinary mechanism different from those of other government employees. Sa ibang salita, ang kapulisan ay hindi katulad ng karaniwang kawani ng pamahalaan. Ang PNP ay may sariling mekanismo ng pagdisiplina na kaiba sa ipinatutupad sa ibang empleyado ng gobyerno.
In Fianza v. The People's Law Enforcement Board, et al., we ruled:x x x although respondent policemen continue to be citizens, as public respondents contend, they are not the `private citizens' referred to in the laws cited above. Clearly, the term `private citizens' does not ordinarily include men in uniform, such as the respondent PNP men. This is particularly evident in the PNP law which uses the term `members of the PNP' as well as `private citizens' to refer to different groups of persons and not interchangeably. The `plain meaning rule' or verba legis in statutory construction is applicable in this situation. When the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its interpretation. The term `private citizen' in the PNP Law and PLEB Rules is used in its common signification and was not meant to refer to the members of the PNP, such as respondent policemen.[28]
x x x As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the PCG used to be administered and maintained as a separate unit of the Philippine Navy under Section 4 of RA 5173. It was subsequently placed under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary of the Department of National Defense (DND) pursuant to Section 4 of PD 601. Eventually, it was integrated into the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) as a major subordinate unit of the Philippine Navy under Section 54 of Chapter 8, Sub-title II, Title VIII, Book IV of EO 292, as amended.The issue in Lista was the legality of the PCG officers' appointments by the President in the absence of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The case did not tackle discipline and order among PCG uniformed personnel.[31] As aptly observed by the OSG, nowhere in the said decision did the Court rule that PCG officers should be covered by civil service rules.
However, on March 30, 1998, after the aforesaid changes in the charter of the PCG, then President Fidel V. Ramos, in the exercise of his statutory authority to reorganize the Office of the President, issued EO 475 transferring the PCG from the DND to the Office of the President. He later on again transferred the PCG from the Office of the President to the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).
Now that the PCG is under the DOTC and no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the promotions and appointments of respondent officers of the PCG, or any PCG officer from the rank of captain and higher for that matter, do not require confirmation by the CA.[30] (Underscoring supplied)
That the PCG uniformed personnel is treated as a separate class - insofar as the maintenance of discipline and efficiency within the said institution - from that of non-uniformed civilian employees, can be gleaned from those proposed bills still pending in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Senate Bills 1287 and 2081, for instance, categorically provide that in the investigation of administrative cases against PCG officers and enlisted personnel, the PCG shall adopt the military justice system until such time that it has promulgated the provisions of the PCG Code of Discipline, Order, and Justice for PCG officers and enlisted personnel. On the other hand, the applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines promulgated by the Civil Service Commission shall govern the investigation of administrative cases against PCG non-uniformed/civilian employees. A similar provision is found in the proposed consolidated House Bill No. 5304. Significantly, HB No. 5304 and SB 1287 also contained a proviso that in times of war as declared by Congress, or the President, the PCG or parts thereof, shall be attached to the DND as a support unit.Until these bills get approval and ripen into law, the jurisdiction and authority of the ESB over uniformed personnel, including its rules of procedure, should be respected. Otherwise, this Court would be jumping the gun on Congress. That would be indulging in impermissible judicial legislation.
Though indeed, the foregoing are just legislative proposals, it is an undeniable reality that the transfer of administrative supervision over PCG to the DOTC did not result in transferring jurisdiction over disciplinary actions or administrative cases involving PCG officers and enlisted personnel to the Civil Service Commission as in the case of its ordinary employees falling under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Commission.[34]
SEC. 7. Powers and Functions of the Secretary. - The Secretary shall:Thus, the DOTC's administrative supervision over PCG includes the authority to adopt policies and implement appropriate measures to regulate the conduct and discipline of the PCG personnel.
x x x
(3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out department objectives, policies, functions, plans, programs and projects;
(4) Promulgate administrative issuances necessary for the efficient administration of the offices under the Secretary and for proper execution of the laws relative thereto. These issuances shall not prescribe penalties for their violation, except when expressly authorized by law;
(5) Exercise disciplinary powers over officers and employees under the Secretary in accordance with law, including their investigation and the designation of a committee or officer to conduct such investigation;
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
(2) Administrative Supervision. - Administrative supervision which shall govern the administrative relationship between a department or its equivalent and regulatory agencies or other agencies as may be provided by law, shall be limited to the authority of the department or its equivalent to generally oversee the operations of such agencies and to ensure that they are managed effectively, efficiently and economically but without interference with day-to-day activities; or require the submission of reports and cause the conduct of management audit, performance evaluation and inspection to determine compliance with policies, standards and guidelines of the department; to take such action as may be necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses and other forms of maladministration; and to review and pass upon budget proposals of such agencies but may not increase or add to them.