Case Digest (G.R. No. 198682)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 198682)
Facts:
Francisco C. Adalim v. Ernesto Taninas, et al., G.R. No. 198682, April 10, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.During the May 10, 2004 local elections, Diego Lim was proclaimed mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar; petitioner Francisco C. Adalim, who also ran for mayor, filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan. On August 5, 2005 the RTC ruled in favor of Adalim and declared him the winning candidate; Lim appealed to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on August 10, 2005. The RTC granted execution pending appeal on August 11, 2005, but Lim continued occupying the municipal hall.
After attempting to assume control, Adalim on August 13–15, 2005 issued memoranda relocating the local government unit's temporary workplace to the Cyrus Hotel and directing municipal employees to log in there. When many employees allegedly did not submit daily time records (DTRs), the municipal treasurer certified that numerous employees — respondents here — had no DTRs for August–October 2005, and Adalim issued separate memoranda dropping them from the rolls for absence without official leave (AWOL), effective five days from receipt.
Most respondent employees appealed to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. VIII in May–July 2006. In an October 27, 2006 order, CSCRO No. VIII granted their appeals, ordered reinstatement and payment of back salaries, finding the employees had in fact continued performing duties at the municipal building but were denied access to the office logbook. Adalim sought reconsideration and appealed to the Central Civil Service Commission (CSC).
On September 27, 2007 the CSC (on Adalim's appeal) reversed CSCRO No. VIII in Resolution No. 07-1845, holding the employees failed to report at their temporary work station and were AWOL. The CSC later reversed itself: in Resolution No. 09-0262 dated February 24, 2009 the CSC directed Adalim to reinstate the respondents with back pay effective August 2005; a motion for reconsideration by Adalim was denied in Resolution No. 09-1197 dated August 10, 2009 (with minor modifications for two employees who had died/retired). Adalim filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which in a Decision dated January 28, 2011 and Resolution dated September 6, 2011 affirmed the CSC resolutions. Adalim then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Court (Second Division) seeking reversal, raising procedural objections (timeliness of the CSC appeals, late payment of appeal fee, alleged admission of issues not pleaded, and the pendency of election remedies) and contesting the substantive finding that respondents were not AWOL.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in giving due course to respondents’ appeals with the CSC despite their alleged filing more than six months after receipt of the dismissal orders?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in giving due course to respondents’ appeals despite the appeal fee not being paid until October 27, 2007?
- Did the CSC err by admitting and deciding issues not presented or alleged in the pleadings?
- Did the CA and CSC err in giving due course to the appeals notwithstanding the pendency of the election controversy and an RTC writ of execution pending appeal (i.e., was the pendency of those remedies a bar to the CSC’s action)?
- Were the respondent employees validly dropped from the rolls for AWOL?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)