Mina C. Nacilla and the late Roberto C.

Jacobe represented herein by his heir and

widow Normita Jacobe, (Petitioners) Vs. Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board, (Respondent)
[G.R. No. 223449, November 10, 2020]

FACTS:

Mina C. Nacilla (Nacilla) and Roberto C. Jacobe (Jacobe) were former

employees of the MTRCB. Nacilla held the position of Administrative Officer V with
Salary Grade (SG) 18 while Jacobe was formerly employed as Secretary I or
Administrative Assistant I with SG 7. On October 29, 2004, MTRCB and the MTRCB
Employees Association executed a Collective Negotiation Agreement (2004 CNA)
covering the period from October 29, 2004, until October 29, 2007. In an attempt to
register the 2004 CNA, Jacobe brought copies to the CSC Personnel Relations Office
(CSC-PRO) where it was discovered that the MTRCBEA did not properly ratify it and
that it was already passed 30 days from the execution when Jacobe brought said CNA
for registration. Hence, the 2004 CNA could not be registered.

Following the advice from the CSC-PRO, Jacobe printed four copies of the 2004
CNA and asked the then MTRCB Chairperson Ma. Consoliza P. Laguardia (Laguardia)
to sign the reprinted copies on December 1, 2005. Jacobe explained to Laguardia that
she needed to re-sign the 2004 CNA so it could be registered with the CSC. Jacobe
then wrote "December 1, 2005" on the documents, the date Laguardia actually re-
signed the re-printed 2004 CNA (2005 CNA). Except for the date indicating it was re-
signed, all other provisions of the 2005 CNA were the same as the 2004 CNA. After
taking all necessary steps, the CSC issued a Certificate of Registration of the 2005 CNA
and provided therein that it would be effective from December 1, 2005, to December 1,
2008.

On October 1, 2007, since the 2004 CNA was about to expire, a CNA Committee
was formed to convene with the officials and representatives of the MTRCBEA in order
to frame a new CNA. During the meeting, Nacilla, as President of the MTRCBEA,
informed the CNA Committee that it was not yet necessary to negotiate a new CNA
since the 2005 CNA registered with the CSC was effective until December 1, 2008.
Laguardia called for an investigation of the matter. As the MTRCB Chairperson, the
investigating committee she created released its Report and Recommendation dated
December 4, 2007, where petitioners were found to be responsible for the falsification of
the 2005 CNA or at least making it appear as a new CNA covering a different period in
order to secure benefits from the MTRCB. Laguardia then formally charged petitioners
for violating civil service rules on dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of
February 9, 2023 Case Digest Collaboration by: Group 1-Topic: Statutory Construction
Abang,Jadeeyah_Del Rosario,Angelo_Lawangen,Perchie _Riparip,Renzon
official documents under Section 52(A) 1, 3, and 6 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service through a Formal Charge dated December 4,
2007, which was amended on December 14, 2007.

Flow of Rulings: The Adjudication Committee created within the MTRCB,

rendered a Decision dated April 8, 2008, finding petitioners guilty of dishonesty and
falsification of public documents and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.

Appeal on June 18, 2008, to the Office of the President (OP), which issued an
Order dated July 15, 2008, stating that without necessarily giving due course to the
appeal, petitioners were directed to pay the appeal fee and submit pertinent documents.
It also dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over administrative cases of
government officials and employees who are not presidential appointees.

The petitioners appealed to the CSC on November 25, 2013. The CSC, without
delving into the merits, dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. Petitioners then
filed an appeal before the CA.

The CA affirmed the CSC. Similarly, without delving into the merits, the CA ruled
that the appeal with the CSC was filed out of time.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the adjudication committee had the
power or authority to order the dismissal of the petitioners.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioners lost their right to
appeal to the CSC when they wrongly filed it with the Office of the President.

HELD:

1. No, the court of appeals did not err in its decision. The adjudication committee
had the power or authority to order the dismissal of the petitioners.

Section 16 of the MTRCB Charter provides that the MTRCB "shall have the
power to suspend or dismiss for cause any employee and/or approve or disapprove the
appointment, transfer or detail of employees." Further, Section 3(j) of P.D. No. 1986
states that the Board can "prescribe the internal and operational procedures for the
exercise of its powers and functions as well as the performance of its duties and
responsibilities, including the creation and vesting of authority upon sub-committees of
the BOARD for the work of review and other related matters." The MTRCB was likewise

February 9, 2023 Case Digest Collaboration by: Group 1-Topic: Statutory Construction
Abang,Jadeeyah_Del Rosario,Angelo_Lawangen,Perchie _Riparip,Renzon
authorized to promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of P.D. No. 1986
and its purposes and objectives.

Further, Section 40 of the 1998 MTRCB Implementing Rules and Regulations

(IRR) allowed the creation of a Hearing and Adjudication Committee composed of three
members of the Board to be designated by the Chairperson to hear and decide cases
involving violations of the MTRCB Charter and its IRR.

Thus, following Section 3(j) of the MTRCB Charter allowing the Board to create
sub-committees for the work of review and other related matters, and Section 40 of the
1998 MTRCB IRR where the Chairperson may designate the three members of the
Hearing and Adjudication Committee, the Board issued the MTRCB Rules of Procedure
on May 11, 1999. The Rules of Procedure were made applicable to any administrative
complaint filed with the MTRCB for violation of the MTRCB Charter and its IRR. The
Rules of Procedure likewise defined "Board" as the MTRCB, or the Chairman of the
Board, or the Hearing and Adjudication Committee, acting for and on behalf of the
Board.

In this case, it is beyond dispute that the MTRCB Chairperson created the
Adjudication Committee and designated three members of the Board as members of the
committee.Further, the MTRCB Rules of Procedure were applicable to complaints for
violations of the MTRCB Charter and its IRR, and there was no indication therein that it
was applicable to disciplinary cases involving the MTRCB's employees. Nonetheless, to
the mind of the Court, the steps followed by the MTRCB and its Chairperson, which
mirrored steps followed for the adjudication of cases for violations of the MTRCB
Charter and its IRR, were all in accord with the broad powers granted to the MTRCB
and to its Chairperson.

It can also be said about the MTRCB, composed of 32 members, including its
Chairperson and its Vice-Chairperson. As shown by the provisions quoted from the
MTRCB's Charter, the MTRCB is empowered to create sub-committees to exercise the
power granted to the Board. There is nothing in its charter that requires that decisions
be made en banc when what is involved is a disciplinary proceeding involving its
employees. Thus, the MTRCB was correct when it argued that the Adjudication
Committee that directed petitioners' dismissal was no different from any of its other
committees. It is a committee exercising the Board's disciplinary power in a manner
allowed by its Charter, by acting through a sub-committee of the Board.

Further, to require that the MTRCB decide disciplinary proceedings en banc

would indeed result in a logistical and administrative nightmare.

February 9, 2023 Case Digest Collaboration by: Group 1-Topic: Statutory Construction
Abang,Jadeeyah_Del Rosario,Angelo_Lawangen,Perchie _Riparip,Renzon
As the Board itself argued in its Comment:

If only the Board en banc can discharge the power to suspend and dismiss an
MTRCB employee, as suggested by petitioners, then x x x all the thirty (30) members,
the Chairperson, and the Vice Chairperson should convene in order to constitute an
investigating body and then again convene to constitute an adjudicative body so that it
could discipline its employees. To follow this proposition from the petitioners would
result in an irrational and unreasonable requirement in the exercise of said power, in
that, if all thirty-two (32) members of the MTRCB could not convene for one reason or
another, it will result in the delay in the administration of justice, particularly, the
suspension, removal or separation of erring government employees from the service, or
exoneration, if found otherwise. This situation will prejudice the whole office, the movie
and television industry, and, ultimately, the Filipino people in general. If all members of
the MTRCB are required to convene to constitute an investigating body or adjudicating
body, no one will be left to perform the other more important duties and responsibilities
that the MTRCB is likewise mandated to do. Quite certainly, the framers of the law did
not intend such kind of absurdity or irrationality. It is a rule of statutory construction that
the court may consider the spirit and reason of a statute where a literal meaning would
lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the
lawmakers.

Consequently, the Adjudication Committee's Resolution dated June 2, 2008,

which ruled on the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, and affirmed the committee's
Decision dated April 8, 2008, indicates "BY AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD". Thus, even
though the Adjudication Committee's Decision was initially unauthorized, it was ratified.
Further, the absence of any proof otherwise will presume that the Adjudication
Committee, the MTRCB, and its Chairperson were performing their functions regularly
and that the Adjudication Committee was authorized to rule on the complaint against
petitioners, and eventually direct their dismissal from service.

2. No. The Court of Appeals did not err in its decision.

On February 7, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. 07- 0244, which amended
Rule III, Section 43 of MC 19, as follows: Section 43. Filing of Appeals. — Decisions of
heads of department, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other
instrumentalities imposing a penalty exceeding thirty (30) days suspension or fine in an
amount exceeding thirty days salary, may be appealed to the Commission Proper within
a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. 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 head and finally to the Commission Proper. Pending
appeal, the same shall be executory except where the penalty is removed, in which
February 9, 2023 Case Digest Collaboration by: Group 1-Topic: Statutory Construction
Abang,Jadeeyah_Del Rosario,Angelo_Lawangen,Perchie _Riparip,Renzon
case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the decision of the head of an attached agency
imposing a penalty exceeding thirty (30) days suspension or tine in an amount
exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or
dismissal from office is appealable directly to the Commission Proper within a period of
fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Pending appeal, the penalty imposed shall be
executory, including the penalty of removal from the service without need for the
confirmation by the department secretary to which the agency is attached.

Based on the foregoing, when the Adjudication Committee rendered a

decision against petitioners on April 8, 2008, the applicable CSC rule was MC 19,
as amended by Resolution No. 07-0244. Following Section 43 as amended,
petitioners had two options: appeal to the department head before appealing to
the CSC or directly file an appeal with the CSC.

This is where petitioners made a grievous mistake when they appealed to

the OP, which as they argue, is the department head. To our mind, the phrase
"department head" when applied to this case refers to the Chairperson of the
MTRCB. The interpretation of said phrase should be specific enough to pertain to
the MTRCB Chairperson, or to Laguardia in particular since logically she
exercised supervision over the affairs of not only the whole Board but also the
MTRCB employees. She technically does not report or answer to a department
head, compared to other departments under the Office of the President such as
the Department of Justice which has a department head in the person of the
Secretary of Justice, who is also a presidential appointee. Treating Laguardia as
the "department head" is a practical application of the phrase given that it would
be illogical to require the Office of the President to rule upon the subject of
Petitioners' dismissal from service when they were not even presidential
appointees.

Besides, the Office of the President is technically not a department under

the purview of Resolution No. 07-0244. Specifically, "department" under
Resolution No. 07-0244 refers to "any of the executive departments or entities
having the category of a department, including the judiciary and the other
constitutional commission and offices." Similarly, the Administrative Code defined
a department as an executive department created by law. Surely the Office of the
President is not merely a department as it is considered as the head office of the
executive branch of the government. Petitioners, therefore, had the option of filing
an appeal with Laguardia or directly with the CSC. It was a mistake for them to
appeal the decision of the Adjudication Committee with the OP as the MTRCB had
its own charter and was considered a department under MC 19, as amended by
February 9, 2023 Case Digest Collaboration by: Group 1-Topic: Statutory Construction
Abang,Jadeeyah_Del Rosario,Angelo_Lawangen,Perchie _Riparip,Renzon
Resolution No. 07- 0244, making Laguardia the department head.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 3,

2015, and Resolution dated March 8, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 135862 are AFFIRMED.

February 9, 2023 Case Digest Collaboration by: Group 1-Topic: Statutory Construction
Abang,Jadeeyah_Del Rosario,Angelo_Lawangen,Perchie _Riparip,Renzon