Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 190 views

    CSC V Appeal

    Uploaded by

    jeth sagana
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court decision regarding two consolidated petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission over administrative cases filed against officials of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission has original concurrent jurisdiction with the University's Board of Regents over such cases. It found that the Commission is authorized as the central personnel agency of the government to assume original jurisdiction over complaints directly filed with it, in addition to having appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondents argued that a new law removed the Commission's authority to directly hear and decide cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CSC V Appeal

    Uploaded by

    jeth sagana
    190 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court decision regarding two consolidated petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission over administrative cases filed against officials of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission has original concurrent jurisdiction with the University's Board of Regents over such cases. It found that the Commission is authorized as the central personnel agency of the government to assume original jurisdiction over complaints directly filed with it, in addition to having appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondents argued that a new law removed the Commission's authority to directly hear and decide cases.

    Original Title

    csc v appeal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court decision regarding two consolidated petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission over administrative cases filed against officials of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission has original concurrent jurisdiction with the University's Board of Regents over such cases. It found that the Commission is authorized as the central personnel agency of the government to assume original jurisdiction over complaints directly filed with it, in addition to having appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondents argued that a new law removed the Commission's authority to directly hear and decide cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    190 views3 pages

    CSC V Appeal

    Uploaded by

    jeth sagana
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court decision regarding two consolidated petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission over administrative cases filed against officials of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission has original concurrent jurisdiction with the University's Board of Regents over such cases. It found that the Commission is authorized as the central personnel agency of the government to assume original jurisdiction over complaints directly filed with it, in addition to having appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondents argued that a new law removed the Commission's authority to directly hear and decide cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 176162 : October 9, 2012

    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, DR. DANTE


    G. GUEV ARRA and ATTY. AUGUSTUS F. CEZAR, Respondents.

    G.R. No. 178845

    ATTY. HONESTO L. CUEVA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, DR. DANTE G.


    GUEV ARRA and ATTY. AUGUSTUS F. CEZAR, Respondents.

    DECISION

    MENDOZA, J.:

    These are consolidated petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
    Civil Procedure assailing the December 29, 2006 Decision1  of the Court of Appeals
    ςrνll

    (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95293, entitled "Dr. Dante G. Guevarra and Atty. Augustus
    Cezar v. Civil Service Commission and Atty. Honesto L. Cueva."

    The Facts

    Respondents Dante G. Guevarra (Guevarra) and Augustus F. Cezar (Cezar) were the
    Officer-in-Charge/President and the Vice President for Administration, respectively,
    of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP)2  in 2005. Ï‚rνll

    On September 27, 2005, petitioner Honesto L. Cueva (Cueva), then PUP Chief Legal
    Counsel, filed an administrative case against Guevarra and Cezar for gross
    dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification of official documents, conduct prejudicial
    to the best interest of the service, being notoriously undesirable, and for violating
    Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713.3  Cueva charged Guevarra with
    ςrνll

    falsification of a public document, specifically the Application for Bond of Accountable


    Officials and Employees of the Republic of the Philippines, in which the latter denied
    the existence of his pending criminal and administrative cases. As the head of the
    school, Guevarra was required to be bonded in order to be able to engage in
    financial transactions on behalf of PUP.4  In his Application for Bond of Accountable
    ςrνll

    Officials and Employees of the Republic of the Philippines (General Form No. 58-A),
    he answered Question No. 11 in this wise:

    11. Do you have any criminal or administrative records? NO. If so, state briefly the
    nature thereof NO.5 ςrνll

    This was despite the undisputed fact that, at that time, both Guevarra and Cezar
    admittedly had 17 pending cases for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
    before the Sandiganbayan.6  Cezar, knowing fully well that both he and Guevarra
    ςrνll
    had existing cases before the Sandiganbayan, endorsed and recommended the
    approval of the application.7ςrνll

    The respondents explained that they believed "criminal or administrative records" to


    mean final conviction in a criminal or administrative case.8  Thus, because their
    ςrνll

    cases had not yet been decided by the Sandiganbayan, they asserted that Guevarra
    responded to Question No. 11 in General Form No. 58-A correctly and in good
    faith.9
    ςrνll

    On March 24, 2006, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued Resolution No.
    06052110  formally charging Guevarra with Dishonesty and Cezar with Conduct
    ςrνll

    Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service after a prima facie finding that they
    had committed acts punishable under the Civil Service Law and Rules.

    Subsequently, the respondents filed their Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to
    Declare Absence of Prima Facie Case11  praying that the case be suspended
    ςrνll

    immediately and that the CSC declare a complete absence of a prima facie case
    against them. Cueva, on the other hand, filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the
    Issuance of Preventive Suspension12  and an Omnibus Motion13  seeking the issuance
    ςrνll ςrνll

    of an order of preventive suspension against Guevarra and Cezar and the inclusion
    of the following offenses in the formal charge against them: Grave Misconduct,
    Falsification of Official Document, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
    Service, Being Notoriously Undesirable, and Violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713.

    In Resolution No. 061141, dated June 30, 2006,14  the CSC denied the motion for
    ςrνll

    reconsideration filed by the respondents for being a non-responsive pleading, akin to


    a motion to dismiss, which was a prohibited pleading under Section 16 of the
    Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Commission.15  It also Ï‚rνll

    denied Cuevas motion to include additional charges against the respondents. The
    CSC, however, placed Guevarra under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days,
    believing it to be necessary because, as the officer-in-charge of PUP, he was in a
    position to unduly influence possible witnesses against him.

    Aggrieved, Guevarra and Cezar filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before


    the CA essentially questioning the jurisdiction of the CSC over the administrative
    complaint filed against them by Cueva. On December 29, 2006, the CA rendered its
    Decision granting the petition and nullifying and setting aside the questioned
    resolutions of the CSC for having been rendered without jurisdiction. According to
    the CA, Section 47, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292
    (The Administrative Code of 1987), the second paragraph of which states that heads
    of agencies and instrumentalities "shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide
    matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their
    jurisdiction," bestows upon the Board of Regents the jurisdiction to investigate and
    decide matters involving disciplinary action against respondents Guevarra and
    Cezar. In addition, the CA noted that the CSC erred in recognizing the complaint
    filed by Cueva, reasoning out that the latter should have exhausted all
    administrative remedies by first bringing his grievances to the attention of the PUP
    Board of Regents.

    Hence, these petitions.

    THE ISSUE
    In G.R. No. 176162, petitioner CSC raises the sole issue of: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has original concurrent


    jurisdiction over administrative cases falling under the jurisdiction of heads
    of agencies.

    The same issue is among those raised by petitioner Cueva in G.R. No. 178845.

    The Court agrees that the only question which must be addressed in this case is
    whether the CSC has jurisdiction over administrative cases filed directly with it
    against officials of a chartered state university.

    The Courts Ruling

    The petitions are meritorious.

    Both CSC and Cueva contend that because the CSC is the central personnel agency
    of the government, it has been expressly granted by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292
    the authority to assume original jurisdiction over complaints directly filed with it. The
    CSC explains that under the said law, it has appellate jurisdiction over all
    administrative disciplinary proceedings and original jurisdiction over complaints
    against government officials and employees filed before it by private
    citizens.16  Accordingly, the CSC has concurrent original jurisdiction, together with
    ςrνll

    the PUP Board of Regents, over the administrative case against Guevarra and Cezar
    and it can take cognizance of a case filed directly with it, despite the fact that the
    Board of Regents is the disciplining authority of university employees.

    Respondents Guevarra and Cezar, on the other hand, fully adopted the position of
    the CA in its questioned decision and propounded the additional argument that the
    passage of R.A. No. 8292 has effectively removed from the CSC the authority to
    hear and decide on cases filed directly with it

    You might also like