Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
JUANITO A.
RUBIO |
|
G.R.
No. 155952 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
|
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
PIO L.
MUNAR, JR., |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Assailed in the present Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision[1] of the Court
of Appeals (CA) promulgated on
The
present petition stemmed from a complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct,
falsification of official document and oppression filed by Pio
L. Munar, Jr. (respondent) against Juanito A. Rubio (petitioner) together with Virginia C. Laudencia
(Laudencia) and Clarence C. Morales (Morales) with
the Regional Office of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) at
Prior
to the filing of the said complaint, respondent was a Utility Foreman of the
Department of Health and assigned to the
In April 1996, the Hospital Credentials Committee
(Committee) of the
The
recommendation of the Committee was then forwarded to petitioner who, acting
thereon, issued an appointment to respondent demoting him to the lower position
of Utility Worker I with corresponding reduction in pay.
This
prompted respondent to file the above-mentioned complaint against petitioner, Laudencia
and Morales.
After
an evaluation of the complaint, the CSC Regional Office found that there exists
a prima facie case against petitioner, Laudencia and
Morales. They were then directed to file their
respective answers to the complaint.
Petitioner
and Laudencia submitted a consolidated answer while
Morales executed an affidavit, denying the charges against them. The CSC
Regional Office then conducted a formal investigation during which the parties
presented their respective evidence. In the course of the proceedings, respondent
withdrew his complaint against Morales.
In her
Investigation Report dated
Thereafter,
the Investigation Report was forwarded to the CSC Central Office at Diliman,
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration while respondent filed a Petition for
Reconsideration.
In a
Resolution dated
Aggrieved
by the Resolution of the CSC Central Office, petitioner filed a Petition for
Review with the CA. On
Hence,
herein petition raising the following issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF SIMPLE MISCONDUCT;
2. WHETHER
OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION (CSC) RESOLUTION NOS. 982839 AND 990949 SANS LACK OF JURISDICTION ON
THE PART OF THE COMMISSION PROPER TO REVIEW AND REVERSE THE DECISION RENDERED
BY THE CSC REGIONAL OFFICE.[2]
Petitioner
contends that as Chief of the Ilocos Regional
Hospital, he exercises direct control and supervision over all subordinate
officers and employees of the said hospital; the exercise of such control and
supervision requires the use of discretion which should be respected if it is
not used in an abusive, whimsical and oppressive manner; he cannot be said to
have performed an unlawful act when he demoted respondent because the same was
based on the recommendation of the hospital’s Credentials Committee; his act of
rating respondent’s performance as unsatisfactory was simply a lawful exercise
of his duty as Chief of Hospital, and there is no evidence that such act was
done with bias and malice.
Petitioner
also contends that the CSC Central Office has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of his case, as respondent did not appeal the decision rendered by
the CSC Regional Director.
In
its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contended that
petitioner’s act of demoting respondent was done in violation of the latter’s
right to due process of law, because he was not formally charged and no
investigation was conducted to afford him the opportunity to air his side.
As
to the jurisdiction of the CSC Central Office, the OSG contends that since
respondent was not formally charged, he could not have filed an appeal of the
decision rendered by the CSC Regional Director. Arguing on the premise that
respondent was deprived of due process of law, the OSG concluded that it is
only proper for the CSC Central Office to take cognizance of the decision of
the CSC Regional Director.
The
parties filed their respective Memoranda.
The
petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioner’s contention that the CA erred in affirming the
findings of the CSC Central Office that petitioner is guilty of simple
misconduct is untenable.
Misconduct
is “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.”[3] The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[4] Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.[5]
In the
instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of
the CSC Central Office that petitioner is guilty of simple misconduct for
having imposed upon respondent the penalty of demotion as a form of
disciplinary sanction,
in the absence of any formal charge and without the benefit of due process.
Settled is the
rule that factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the CSC, that
are affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by this Court.[6]
There are
recognized exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made
is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings,
the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings
are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[7] The Court finds
that none of these exceptions is present in the instant case.
A review of
the records of the present case reveals that there is no evidence to show that
respondent was formally charged, and that he was given a chance to show cause
why he should not be demoted. In fact, petitioner failed to refute the findings
of the CSC Central Office regarding this matter.
Indeed, once
an appointment is issued and the appointee
assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he
acquires a legal, not merely an equitable, right to the position which is
protected not only by statute, but also by the constitution, and cannot be
taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment or by removal,
except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing.[8]
Also,
petitioner’s claim that
respondent’s demotion was non-disciplinary in nature is
unavailing as the Certification,[9] viz:
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that MR. PIO L. MUNAR, JR., Utility Foreman, was demoted to Utility Worker I because of Unsatisfactory Performance for the last two grading periods (Jan-June 1995, July-Dec 1995).
This is to certify further that said demotion was a result of a disciplinary action.
This certification is issued this 2nd day of May 1996, for all legal intents and purposes.
(Sgd.) JUANITO A. RUBIO, MD, FACOG, FPCS
Chief of Hospital III
(Emphasis supplied)
issued by herein petitioner, clearly shows that respondent’s demotion was
a result of disciplinary action.
The
Court is likewise not persuaded by petitioner’s contention that in the absence
of an appeal by herein respondent Munar, the CSC
Central Office has no jurisdiction to review and reverse the decision rendered
by the CSC Regional Director.
Petitioner
never raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the CSC Central Office.
Neither did he raise it at the first instance when he filed a petition for
review with the CA. It was only in his Motion for Reconsideration
with the appellate court that he brought up said issue. Settled is the rule that issues not raised in
the proceedings below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[10] Petitioner is barred from questioning the
jurisdiction of the CSC Central Office on the ground of estoppel.
While it is a rule that a jurisdictional
question may be raised at any time, this, however, admits of an exception
where, as in this case, estoppel has supervened.
This Court has time and again frowned upon the
undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting
the judgment only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when
adverse.[11] Instead of opposing the exercise of
jurisdiction by the CSC Central Office seasonably, petitioner invoked said
jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings before it. His participation, when taken together with
his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the CSC Central Office during the
entire duration of the proceedings before such administrative body,
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case by such
tribunal and, accordingly, respondent is now estopped
from objecting to the CSC Central Office’s assumption of jurisdiction over his
case. Petitioner
cannot now be allowed to adopt an inconsistent posture on this score.
Finally and more significantly, petitioner
should realize that he is arguing on a wrong premise. The CSC Regional Director did not render any
decision or resolution that can be appealed. What has been forwarded by the CSC Regional
Office to the CSC Central Office is not a decision or resolution but only an
Investigation Report. Hence, in
rendering its assailed Resolutions, the CSC Central Office took cognizance of respondent’s complaint in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction over the said case. It did not act by virtue of its appellate
authority, as there was nothing to review by way of an appeal.
In this
respect, the applicable rules of procedure at the time the complaint was filed
with the CSC are provided for by CSC Resolution No. 94-0521, otherwise known as
the Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations
in the Civil Service Commission. More particularly, Sections 35 and 36 of the
said Rules provide as follows:
Section 35. Report
of Investigation. – Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the
formal investigation a report containing a narration of the material facts
established during the investigation as well as the recommendations, shall be
submitted to the Commission, through the Regional Director, by the Hearing
Officer. The complete
records of the case shall be attached to the Report of Investigation.
Section 36. Decision
after formal investigation. – The Commission shall render a decision in
writing within thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation or
receipt of the Report of Investigation, together with the complete records of
the case.
This is the procedure appropriately followed by
the CSC Regional Office and the CSC Central Office.
WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit.
Costs
against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now a member of this Court) and concurred
in by Justices Marina L. Buzon and Eliezer R. de Los
[2] Petition for Review on Certiorari; rollo, pp. 7-8.
[3] Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 589, 603.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Wooden v. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 152884,
[7]
[8] The General Manager, Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) v. Monserate, 430 Phil. 832, 845 (2002) citing Aquino v. Civil Service Commission, 208 SCRA 240 (1992).
[9] Exhibit “11”; original records, p. 229.
[10] Vda. de Gualberto v. Go, G.R. No.
[11] David v. Cordova, G.R. No.