1.

ADALIM vs TANINAS et al
G.R. No. 198682 April 10, 2013

FACTS:
During the 10 May 2004 elections, Diego Lim (Lim) was proclaimed Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar. Petitioner
Francisco C. Adalim (Adalim), a candidate for the same position, filed an election protest against Lim before the
RTC who ruled in favor of the latter and declared him as the winning candidate in the elections. Lim appealed to
the COMELEC.
Subsequently, Adalim’s motion for Execution pending appeal was granted by the RTC. Adalim then issued a
memorandum directing all employees to log in and log out in Cyrus hotel where his temporary office was located.
The employees, herein respondents failed to do so, hence, they were dropped from the employees’ rolls due to
AWOL. The respondents filed an appeal with the CSC alleging that they were dropped without due process in
which the CSC ruled in their favor. CA affirmed the decision. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari on the
ground that the respondents filed the appeal out of time.

ISSUE:
WON THE CA ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE APPEAL OF
RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES WITH THE CSC DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS FILED OUT OF TIME OR AFTER MORE
THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THEIR RECEIPT OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER.

RULING:
NO. The petition has no merit.
At the outset, Adalim assails the CSC’s liberal application of its rules. In a number of cases, we upheld the CSC’s
decision relaxing its procedural rules to render substantial justice.14 The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service themselves provide that administrative investigations shall be conducted without strict recourse
to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings. 15 The case before the CSC
involves the security of tenure of public employees protected by the Constitution. 16 Public interest requires a
resolution of the merits of the appeal instead of dismissing the same based on a rigid application of the CSC Rules
of Procedure.17 Accordingly, both the CSC and the CA properly allowed respondent employees’ appeal despite
procedural lapses to resolve the issue on the merits.