Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
GR NO. 176162
October 9, 2012
Jurisdiction
FACTS:
Guevarra and Cezar were the President and VP of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines
(PUP). Cueva, then PUP Chief Legal Counsel, filed an administrative case against them for gross
dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents, conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, being notoriously undesirable (under Sec. 4, RA 6713). Guevarra was
charged with the falsification of his Application for Bond of Accountable Officials and Employees
of the Republic of the Philippines, a public document, where he denied the existence of his pending
criminal and admin case. This was despite the undisputed fact that both Guevarra and Cezar had
17 pending cases with the Sandiganbayan.
On March 24, 2006, the CSC issued a Resolution formally charging Guevarra with Dishonesty
and Cezar with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service after finding a prima facie
case. Guevarra and Cezar filed an MR and Motion to Declare Absence of Prima Facie case. In
response, Cueva filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of Preventive Suspension and
an Omnibus Motion seeking the issuance of an order of preventive suspension against Guevarra
and Cezar.
The CSC denied the MR, since the MR was a non-responsive pleading (akin to a Motion to
Dismiss), which was a prohibited pleading under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
CSC. Guevarra and Cezar filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA questioning
the jurisdiction of the CSC over the admin complaint. The CA granted this petition and set aside
the CSC resolutions on the ground that they were rendered without jurisdiction, based on Section
47, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of EO 292 or the Admin Code of 1987 (“heads of
agencies and instrumentalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction.” This clause bestows
upon the PUP Board of Regents the jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against the respondents. The CA added that the CSC erred in recognizing the
complaint because Cueva should have exhausted all admin remedies by first bringing the
complaint to the Board of Regents)
ISSUE:
Whether the CSC has jurisdiction over administrative cases filed directly with it against
officials of a chartered state university.
HELD:
YES.
1. CSC has jurisdiction over cases filed directly with it, regardless of who initiated the
complaint.
1
Although the first paragraph of Sec 47, Chap 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of EO 292 states
that “A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen”, the
Court found that the literal interpretation that only a private citizen (as compared to a
member of the civil service), can file a complaint directly with the CSC unreasonable.
There is no cogent reason to differentiate between a complaint filed by a private citizen
and one filed by a member of the service.
Since the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the government, has the power to appoint
and discipline its official and employees and to hear and decide admin cases brought before
it directly or on appeal, and that the Constitution provides that the civil service embraces
all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities of the Government, including GOCCs with
original charters, PUP falls within the CSC’s jurisdiction when it became a chartered state
university (making it a GOCC).
2. CSC has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board of Regents over administrative
cases
Although Section 4 of the Uniform Rules state that the “CSC shall have the final authority
to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the
civil service…”, Section 7 explicitly granted original concurrent jurisdiction to the
CSC, belying the CA’s suggestion that the CSC could only take cognizance of cases on
appeal. Moreover, the case of Alfonso stated that “admittedly the CSC has appellate
jurisdiction over disciplinary cases by govt departments, but a complaint may be filed
directly with the CSC and the CSC has the authority to hear and decide the case, although
it may opt to deputize a department or an agency to conduct the investigation.”